The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence

New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on a new start for public transport in Northern Ireland.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to announce to the Assembly the start of a period of public consultation on my proposals to reform the planning, delivery and governance of public transport.
When I presented the regional transportation strategy to the Assembly in July, I stressed the importance that I accorded to the future development of public transport. Of the proposed £3·5 billion investment envisaged in the regional transportation strategy over the next 10 years, some 32% will be allocated to public transport. That represents a doubling of the funding allocated to public transport over the past 10 years. It will require at least this level of investment if we are to achieve the stepped change in public transport strongly advocated throughout the process of formulating the regional transportation strategy. However, I cautioned that the scale of investment required for public transport is unlikely to be met by public expenditure alone. Inevitably, we will have to explore opportunities for attracting private sector finance and expertise.
Today, I am publishing an outline for a new institutional and regulatory framework in a consultation document, ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’. I will outline the key elements of my proposals. The Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and its Translink bus and rail subsidiaries would be amalgamated into a new, dynamic, publicly owned operating company, Transport Northern Ireland. An independent public transport regulatory body would be established, initially in shadow form and in due course on a statutory basis.
I propose the progressive injection of private sector finance and expertise to the public transport market, but only in so far as it makes sound commercial sense and is acceptable to the community. I want a new start for public transport in Northern Ireland, and I regard these proposals as important stepping stones to a system fit for future years.
The development of public transport in Northern Ireland has suffered severely from violence, underinvestment and declining patronage. Last year, despite the successful introduction of free travel for senior citizens and the uplift that that initiative brought to ridership, the overall number of Translink passengers fell by 2·5%.
Despite the difficult conditions of the past 30 years, Translink management and staff have managed to provide a regular and necessary service to the Northern Ireland public. I pay particular tribute to the courage and dedication of Translink drivers in dealing with the unwarranted, mindless attacks that have been inflicted on them in recent months. I reiterate my abhorrence of those attacks, which are made against the whole community.
On a wider level, I acknowledge the dedication of Translink staff in keeping services running despite a public expenditure framework that has constrained new investment and innovation. There is a growing recognition that some of the difficulties that we face in reversing the decline in passengers and quality of service may stem from the institutional structures in which public transport operates. It is generally acknowledged that the relationship between the Department for Regional Development, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and the operating companies — Northern Ireland Railways, Citybus and Ulsterbus — must change.
Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, the publicly owned Translink companies have a near monopoly on public transport services. They are controlled by the board of the Transport Holding Company, which has a statutory duty to act commercially but is constrained by public expenditure limits on borrowing and expenditure. Although the Department for Regional Development has overall responsibility for public transport policy and grant funding, it has been left to the Transport Holding Company to determine the extent of the network and the standard of public transport services using the resources that are made available to it. The Transport Holding Company has had the tension of trying to plan adequate services to meet social needs while managing the Translink companies in pursuit of commercial objectives.
I propose to address the institutional shortcomings by amalgamating the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and its Translink subsidiaries into a new publicly owned public transport company, Transport Northern Ireland. That company would have direct lines of accountability with the Department for Regional Development as its shareholder. It would continue to have a leading role in the provision of bus and rail services but would focus on developing the commerciality of the operating companies, with a view to competing in a market progressively opened up to private sector participation.
The Transport Holding Company’s functions of planning a transport network to meet social needs and of setting and enforcing appropriate standards of services would be transferred to a new public transport regulatory body. That body would be appointed by, and report directly to, the Minister for Regional Development. Initially, it would be set up in shadow form in the Department for Regional Development, but once formally established, it would have its own staff and resources and would operate at arm’s length from the Department.
The proposal’s aim is to make the planning and delivery of public transport more rational and objective, and to give the operating companies an independent challenge. The establishment of a regulatory body would rectify the current conflicting role whereby I, as Minister, am the public owner, policy maker and part regulator of public transport.
Under my proposals the regulatory body would take on the licensing of bus routes as part of the overall economic regulation of the bus network. The Department of the Environment carries out that function at present, and I welcome the Minister of the Environment’s agreement that the proposal be included in the consultation paper. The Department of the Environment would, however, continue to regulate the safety and operating standards of road passenger transport providers under a revised licensing system.
I have considered public transport arrangements in other countries. Experience suggests that independent or quasi-independent regulation is essential in developing a market in public transport. However, there is no one-size-fits-all model for the roles and responsibilities that a regulatory body should hold. Although the consultation paper lists some possible functions that a regulatory body might perform, the most appropriate arrangements for the Northern Ireland market have still to be worked out. Ultimately, the precise role of the body will be determined after the public response on how far Translink services should be open to the market. Changes to the functions of the Transport Holding Company and the establishment of a regulatory body will require new legislation. I intend to review the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and other relevant legislation and in due course introduce a Bill for the Assembly to give effect to an agreed package of reforms. That is unlikely to happen before 2004. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed finer details for the new institutions at that time.
I turn now to how private sector finance might be introduced to the public transport market. There are many models in use across Europe. At one end of the spectrum there is the closed market, in which a public sector operator is protected from competition. Such an absence of competitive pressures can give rise to cost and other inefficiencies and act as a barrier to new forms of finance. However, there are mechanisms whereby the public sector operator can be given scope to franchise services to private sector providers or can introduce private investment through borrowing. Under that model, it may be possible for the public sector operator to engage the private sector in the development of major schemes such as the proposed rapid transit initiative for Belfast.
At the other end of the spectrum is the deregulated free market with minimal barriers to entry by anyone and direct competition between operators. That model operates in the rest of the United Kingdom outside London. Although deregulation has undoubtedly resulted in operating efficiencies, the market turmoil that it has caused is well documented. Between those two models there are various permutations of controlled competition, where operators have exclusive rights to deliver services for fixed periods after the award of a contract through competition. Under that model, a publicly owned public transport company would compete actively with the private sector for tendered services.
In the consultation paper I do not advocate unfettered deregulation as in Great Britain but rather a model that retains a publicly owned public transport company subject to the possible progressive injection of private sector finance in a manner acceptable to the community. Some key strengths in the present model of delivering public transport must be considered when new arrangements are being developed. For example, Translink’s near monopoly of bus services enables it to cross-subsidise uneconomic services from profitable services without the need for further revenue support from the Assembly’s Budget. Furthermore, through its control of rail and bus services, Translink has the potential to plan and deliver public transport in a wholly integrated manner.
At the same time, we cannot overlook the findings of recent studies of public transport systems in Europe. Those found that cities whose public transport services were regulated under controlled competition experienced higher rates of growth in passenger trips and better recovery of operating costs through fare income than those with closed public transport markets. Those studies concluded that controlled competition helps to maintain stability in the public transport market at a lower cost and with better prospects for permanent involvement.
Controlled competition, in which Transport Northern Ireland would play a major part, has the potential to ensure more transparency in the allocation of the Assembly’s resources and better value for money for taxpayers and passengers. I posed the question in the consultation paper of how far and how quickly the public transport market should be opened up to private sector participation. No doubt I shall receive a range of views. Whatever the outcome of the consultation, the timetable for introducing greater private sector participation is likely to be influenced by European Union liberalisation measures now in draft form. EU Regulations on public service requirements and the awarding of public transport service contracts are under consideration. If adopted, they will move us away from the virtual closed market model.
Challenging years lie ahead of us in implementing the agreed vision for public transport set out in the regional transportation strategy. Today’s consultation paper outlines a bold new framework to help us to plan and deliver the modern transport services that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. We are faced with the real opportunity of shaping a new start.
I look forward to the paper stimulating a lively debate and encouraging a broad cross-section of the public to come forward with their views. It is my intention to publish the findings of the consultation process by the end of the year. Thereafter, I shall reflect carefully on the responses, and, in due course, I shall introduce a set of detailed proposals for consideration by the Assembly.

Mr Alban Maginness: The Committee for Regional Development has been kept informed of the Minister’s views, and for that we are grateful. The nub of the statement is the creation of a new, dynamic, publicly owned operating company, Transport Northern Ireland, and the setting up of an independent public transport regulatory body. Both developments are to be generally welcomed. The detail is for discussion and careful scrutiny by the Committee.
Although the closed market makes people uncomfortable and has not worked to the advantage of public transport in Northern Ireland, many people fear the opening up of the market to private operators, given what has happened in England and elsewhere.

Mr Speaker: The Member must ask his question.

Mr Alban Maginness: Can the Minister assure the House that the introduction of the private sector into public transport will not affect the quality of service and will not undermine the publicly owned transport system in Northern Ireland?

Mr Peter Robinson: I shall consider the Committee’s views with great interest when I receive them. Committee members may have the opportunity to speak to other stakeholders before making their own comments.
My purpose in introducing the proposals is to approve the public transport service. The principle of opening up public transport to private sector involvement is an attempt to move away from having the service that the provider decides is appropriate to one that is more responsive to the consumer — in this case, the passenger.
There should be no fear of the outcome. The purpose is to improve service delivery in a way that responds to user demand. The consultation paper’s underlying principle is that we are not suggesting unfettered deregulation. We are considering a controlled environment. Worldwide evidence suggests that the best results are achieved in controlled circumstances. EU documentation shows an increase in public transport usage in areas with a controlled private sector involvement. It also shows a reduction in public transport usage when there was either total deregulation or total public ownership.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the paper, and although I recognise the good work done by Translink, it is clear that Northern Ireland needs a new management system for the twenty-first century. Private sector operators will be interested in the most lucrative routes, and that will affect the service on lesser-used routes. Translink subsidised the less valuable routes with the more lucrative ones. How does the Minister envisage private sector involvement dealing with that?
I acknowledge the good work of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, but has the Minister given any thought to introducing an independent transport users’ group to look after the interests of passengers and support the management of the proposed system?

Mr Peter Robinson: I will not rule anything out at this stage. The need for a users’ group is a legitimate point that can be considered during the consultation exercise. The Deputy Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee will know from his interest in the subject that about 4% of usage on Northern Ireland’s roads is by public transport. I stated that 32% of the proposed funding would be allocated to public transport. However, that allocation was increased to 35% between the draft and the final regional transportation strategy, so there is significant development potential in public transport under the regional transportation strategy and opportunities for public transport to progress.
The large scale of investment envisaged requires the Department to examine the model and make progress in institutional terms. I do not want to be prescriptive in how I envisage the handling of various routes, but section 4.5 of the consultation paper acknowledges that Translink can cross-subsidise uneconomic services from profitable ones. That is a key element that the regulator will have to consider, because it is only on the regulator’s analysis that any decisions will be taken on the involvement of the private sector. The Department must ensure that the regulator can examine the data, analyse it and make recommendations. Those decisions will be the key to at least two issues — one of which the Deputy Chairperson has mentioned.

Mr William Hay: The 10-year regional transportation strategy is a vital component of the regional development strategy. The Committee for Regional Development has stated that new management structures are required to deliver the vision that all Members have for public transport. Does the Minister see any merit in consulting the private operator on the new structures and on the vision that the Department and the Committee have for the future of transport in Northern Ireland?

Mr Peter Robinson: Private operators will have an interest in the consultation exercise and will want to give the Department their views, which will be considered with all others. However, there is a range of possible permutations from the public sector operator to the possibility of introducing private investment through borrowing and the franchising of services to the private sector and thence right through to the private sector operator. There is a range of possible outcomes. Anyone who has been in my position will have respect for the role that Translink staff have played in difficult circumstances.
The immense new opportunities should be highlighted. The number of routes and trips on public transport will increase substantially, and that will provide a good future for the people who are involved. Public transport will not operate to the detriment of the people who are working in the system.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the consultation paper ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’ and the proposals to improve the management of our transportation system. If we are to have the public transport system envisaged in the regional transportation strategy, we will need a new vision of how that is managed.
The Minister says that he proposes to proceed with his injection of private sector funding into the transportation system. Has he considered proposals that involve public sector finance? If so, can he assure the House that his proposals will represent good value for the spending of public funds? Has the Minister fully considered the long-term implications that private sector finance would have for his Department’s spending of public moneys?

Mr Peter Robinson: One of the first conundrums that I faced in the Department was the issue of trains. I had visits from the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and from Translink. They wanted to lease new trains, but could not do so under the present arrangements. I am not going to be prescriptive about the extent of private sector involvement.
There is a danger that, the more questions I answer, the more it might seem that my mind is closed on the issue. That would reduce the effectiveness of the consultation process. My mind is not closed; I am avoiding responding to some questions simply to leave the issues open, because legitimate views will emerge on a range of issues.
There is a qualification in the statement and in the consultation document in relation to the injection of private sector interest and involvement, which is the extent to which the community in Northern Ireland felt comfortable with it. The key gauge for the consultation exercise is to find out how much the community believes the issue should be opened up.
My experiences of travelling outside Northern Ireland are that the private sector has become increasingly involved in public transport and that higher standards have been created through that competition. That is to the advantage of the consumer, and more people are now using public transport. That is a key objective in the regional transportation strategy. Much of the process flows directly from the regional transportation strategy and its objectives to encourage the use of public transport and to make Northern Ireland transportation less dependent on the car.

Mr Seamus Close: Can the Minister guarantee that proposals such as that in section 4.7 of the consultation document would not lead to the further demise of public transport through the closure of uneconomic routes?
In my constituency of Lagan Valley, people are conscious that an axe hangs over the Knockmore railway line. It is ironic that the Minister can talk about a new start while contemplating the closure of some lines. I hope that this is not an extension of a closure policy and that the Minister, who referred to rationality and objectivity, will ensure that lines are kept open, rather than introduce the private sector and allow it to close more lines.

Mr Peter Robinson: I never cease to be amazed at Mr Close’s ingenious inclusion of the Antrim-Knockmore line in every question.
If a consultation exercise were to result in the recommendation that routes be opened up to private sector involvement, that option would be scrutinised by the regulator. Experience has shown that regulators, such as the water industry commissioner, Alan Sutherland, in Scotland or the electricity regulator, Douglas McIldoon, are friendly to the consumer. Mr Close will find that the regulator is an independent champion of the consumer. I would have thought, therefore, that he would have been applauding me from the Benches for adopting an approach that will surely assist the consumers’ case.

Ms Jane Morrice: Undoubtedly, the service is in dire need of a shake-up. I therefore welcome the long-awaited attempt to make a fresh start. However, the Minister admitted that he is the public owner, the policy maker and part regulator of public transport, so he must be responsible for the mess that it is in.
First, how much will the regional transportation strategy cost? Secondly, how long will it take to implement, and, in the meantime, what will he do to ensure that the buses in Bangor link up with the trains and that the trains run on time?

Mr Robert McCartney: Jawohl, mein Herr.

Mr Speaker: That should be "meine Dame".

Mr Peter Robinson: I did not confess to operating the trains and buses, so Ms Morrice has reached an unwarranted conclusion. However, she said that the service is dire and in need of a shake-up, and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland made remarks about the attractiveness of the service. Even if the Member and the Consumer Council had not made those comments, it is clear that services in Northern Ireland could be improved.
The increased funding, the institutional changes and changes in arrangements, which I proposed in the regional transportation strategy, are precisely intended to give the service a shake-up. However, as to who is responsible for the mess, the Member ought to recognise that the mess did not start in December 1999. It existed before I took responsibility for the Department.
The Department is trying to draw in private finance, thereby reducing the amount of public expenditure required. Until I know what model will be adopted, I cannot say what the reduction in public sector funding might be. The costs of providing the type of public transport system that we require are set out in the regional transportation strategy document, which I am sure the Member has read in detail.

Mr Robert McCartney: I welcome the aspirational aspects of the Minister’s statement — I use the word "aspirational" advisedly, and in no way as a criticism of the Minister. Yesterday, when the First Minister presented the working group’s review of the opportunities for public-private partnership, he said that there was a major deficit in public investment that would require £6 billion over the next 10 years.
Last Monday, the Minister for Regional Development, when answering questions about water and sewerage, indicated that £3 billion would be required over the next 20 years — or £1·5 billion over the next 10 years. If my arithmetic is correct, his Department will require £5 billion over the next 10 years for water, sewerage and transport. That leaves £1 billion for the major spending Departments — Health and Education.
Does the Minister agree that whether the money comes from public-private partnerships, Treasury loans or elsewhere, the capital and the interest on that money must be repaid? Does he envisage that that repayment will come from increasing the rates, with a tap tax on water or possibly a toilet tax on effluent? If not, where will the money come from to meet what the Minister — properly and correctly — described as a major requirement? Are we back to the position where there is no way we can reasonably fund, without screwing the people of Northern Ireland, the terrible deficit left by the British Government, which was accepted by those who negotiated the agreement?

Mr Peter Robinson: My Department requires £3 billion over the next 20 years. Over 10 years, that is £0·5 billion more than we might get through public expenditure normally, if one were to extrapolate the figures over that period. It is not an additional £3 billion over 20 years — that is the amount we require over 20 years. Therefore, in the next 10 years it would be only £0·5 billion, rather than £3 billion, that would be counted in the £6 billion mentioned by the First Minister yesterday.
The underlying message, however, is accurate: there is no free money. If one borrows from, or involves, the private sector, there is a payback. The private sector is not renowned for being so altruistic that it provides the public sector with services without getting a return. The Minister of Finance and Personnel — and I had better be careful to get my facts right because he is in the Chamber — will tell you that, if the reinvestment and reform initiative is used, a new stream of income must be identified. Therefore, that would be additional to the regional rate.
If a PPP is used, that can be covered under the departmental expenditure limit to the extent that there is room for manoeuvre with regard to additional expenditure. Undoubtedly, if the reinvestment and reform initiative is used, an additional stream of income will be required. Therefore, an increase in rates may be required.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the proposals to set up a single transport company in Northern Ireland and to establish a new regulatory body.
There will be anxiety among the employees of the bus and rail companies, and they need some reassurance. Their fear would be that we might have privatisation of bus and rail by the back door. Can the Minister assure us that that is not his primary intention and that there is a commitment to retain a substantially publicly owned transport system?
Does the Minister favour a controlled competition system for Northern Ireland, so that all areas of the region can enjoy some level of public transport provision? How can the number of passengers using public transport be increased, and will clear targets be set for the new company?

Mr Peter Robinson: I made it clear in the statement that there would be a public transport company, which would be opened up to private sector involvement. I understand the concerns of those employed in public transport. There is always a concern when someone proposes the consideration of something new. However, if those involved look at the regional transportation strategy and the consultation paper, they will see that there will be an enormous uplift of employment prospects in public transportation.
Expenditure on public transport has significantly increased in the regional transport strategy. Although it accounts for 4% of road usage at present, it has taken about 16% of public expenditure over the past 10 years. That was increased to 32% in the draft and to 35% in the final document. With regard to expenditure, therefore, there has been a massive uplift in the potential of public transport.
If I worked in public transport and saw that the percentage of spend would more than double, that the number of routes in the Province would increase, that the frequency of journeys would improve and that a new rapid transport system had been proposed, I would see opportunities rather than doors closing behind me. There are real opportunities, and people who work in public transport should not be afraid of the document. They should grasp the challenge and the opportunity that it presents and move forward to the advantage of public transport users here.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I welcome the Minister’s statement and especially his recognition that Translink has had a difficult time during the past 30 years and has made the best of a bad job. How will the new transport body be appointed?

Mr Peter Robinson: I have views on how it could happen. However, how it will happen is a decision that will be taken after proper consultation. I want to hear the Member’s proposals and those of others.
If the new arrangement that he refers to is the overseeing body, Transport Northern Ireland, I expect that it will be established through ministerial appointment. Ministerial appointment has always involved those who are closely connected with public transportation. At present, I am delighted with the equality on the new Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHCo) board. We have managed to bring in expertise from areas where the interest in public transport has been much wider at a higher level. That body of people immediately responded to the challenge of a new start and has been prepared to embrace it.
If the arrangement that the Member refers to is the regulator, I believe that that body will, at first, be set up in shadow mode under the Department. As the statutory basis of the regulator will go through the House, clearly he will have to be at arm’s length from the Department.

John Taylor: I welcome the Minister’s statement and his praise for those who worked in Northern Ireland’s public transport services during the troubles, to which must be added the name of the chief executive, Mr Ted Hesketh. I share the concerns of the hon Member for North Down about where the finance for the proposals will come from. We look forward to hearing about that in the months ahead. However, it is great to see new thinking being directed towards our public transport system.
I have, for many years, been interested in the resumption of a rail system linking Dundonald, Comber and Newtownards. I welcome, therefore, the proposed establishment of a public transport regulatory body. I know that it will be a shadow body at first. However, can the Minister give the House some idea of when it will become a separate independent body to which Members will be able to feed their thoughts on new routes that are required in Northern Ireland?

Mr Peter Robinson: I welcome the Member who is visiting the Assembly today. We are always delighted to have him in the Chamber.

John Taylor: It was the hon Member for North Down who was not here yesterday. I know that he hinted that that should be mentioned.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member for North Down was here yesterday — I had the pleasure of having a conversation with him then.

Mr Robert McCartney: I voted as well.

Mr Peter Robinson: Having read the Member for Strangford’s newspaper, which is going around the constituency, I hope that he will not use the next issue to take credit for this initiative, in the way that he took credit for my decisions on free fares for senior citizens, the Comber bypass and Castlebawn. [Laughter].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Peter Robinson: However, the Member rightly draws attention to the significant role that the workforce at every level of Translink has played over recent years. One is apt to forget, or it may diminish in one’s memory, the very difficult role that the workforce has had to perform in the past 10 or 20 years to keep a public transport system going amid the level of conflict on our streets. The community has much to be proud of in its public servants and has much for which to commend the workforce at Translink.
Sadly, the difficulties that the workforce faces continue, with regular attacks on bus and train drivers. I know the view of the House in its condemnation of such activity. I join the right hon Gentleman in welcoming the honour received by Ted Hesketh recently. The CBE was a fitting reward for his services to public transport and to the community in Northern Ireland.
The Member mentioned the prospect of a rail line between Dundonald and Newtownards or Comber. The future for that entire area best lies in the development of a rapid transit network. If a decision is eventually taken to run rapid transit down the Comber railway line from Dundonald into Belfast, there must be opportunities for Newtownards or Comber to link into that line. That is much more viable than any heavy rail options for those areas. There are massive opportunities for people in those areas to benefit from rapid transit should it run from Dundonald into Belfast.

Harbours Bill: First Stage

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 5/02] to confer functions on the Department for Regional Development in relation to the regulation of certain harbour authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Family Law (Divorce etc.) Bill: Second Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Family Law (Divorce etc.) Bill (NIA 01/02) be passed.
The Bill deals with two aspects of family law. The first is divorce, which is a sad reality of life for many in Northern Ireland. The second concerns three outdated and anomalous provisions of the law on family property, which I shall deal with presently.
The Executive, in their Programme for Government, are committed to supporting children and their families. The Executive’s children’s fund has been created to develop services that will help children and their families in Northern Ireland. The Children’s Commissioner Bill is another example of our concern for children. Supporting families should be one of our main concerns. However, support comes in many forms, and we must face reality. Sadly, marriages do break down, and all sorts of families are affected by breakdowns that occur for all sorts of reasons. Experience shows that people in Northern Ireland do not enter into divorce lightly. I can assure the Assembly that research commissioned by the Office of Law Reform shows that couples tend to divorce using the separation facts and over a relatively long period. In contrast to the position in England, our divorce rate is around the European Union average. Divorce rates have remained almost the same over the last decade, although, as the statistics show, the numbers fluctuate from year to year.
Divorce law has evolved over many years to cater for the needs of society. In the nineteenth century, industrial injury and the perils of childbirth meant that most marriages were short-lived — often they did not last beyond 10 or 20 years. For those whose marriages broke down, divorce was available only at great cost by a private Act of Parliament. Parliamentarians felt that divorce should be made difficult and expensive to keep it out of the hands of the so-called feckless poor.
Despite that policy, marriages broke down, and people sought different ways of handling the situation. Men in particular simply deserted their families and started a new life in another part of the country leaving their wives and children to be cared for by the local poor law committee. However, society has evolved since then and is no longer prepared to allow people to act in that way. Although marriage breakdown is not a new problem, divorce law must be periodically reviewed to ensure that it meets modern-day requirements and protects people. The Bill follows wide consultation with people across Northern Ireland and is informed by long and detailed research on how people here use the divorce system.
The research and consultation processes showed that the divorce system here works fairly well most of the time. However, there is room for improvement. In particular, the system could do more to promote good post-divorce relationships for the sake of the children and to minimise, in so far as primary legislation can, the bitterness and acrimony of divorce. Children could, and should, be more central to the system, and the law could be made easier for users to understand.
The Bill does not make divorce easier. It seeks to refine the divorce system so that it can better achieve its objectives. It strikes a balance between fears about maintaining family life and ensuring that no one is left outside the law’s protection during a difficult period.
The Law Commission for England and Wales made a famous statement in 1966:
"A good divorce law should aim to save saveable marriages and to ensure that where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the empty legal shell should be destroyed with the maximum of fairness and the minimum of bitterness, distress and humiliation."
I would like to add to that. A good divorce law, like a team of paramedics, is called upon in the aftermath of the disaster of marriage breakdown. It does not cause the disaster, but it will be judged on how well it deals with the aftermath and on how it facilitates the resumption of normal life.
Although some acrimony is unavoidable, an effective divorce system can help to lower the tension between the parties. In many cases, after they cease to be husband and wife they will still be father and mother. A good divorce system does not worsen relationships between them so that they are unable to maintain a relationship as parents for life.
The Bill, therefore, fine-tunes the procedures for divorce in Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that those procedures do not make a difficult situation even harder for the parties and children affected by the breakdown of a marriage.
In the main provisions of the Bill, clause 1 sets out a statement of principles. That is designed as an interpretive aid for the court and for any persons exercising functions under the divorce legislation. The principles are that where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end, it should be done with the minimum distress to the parties and children affected; that questions should be dealt with in a manner designed to promote as good as possible a continuing relationship between the parties and children affected; and that in those cases where there is a risk of domestic violence, it should be removed or diminished as far as is reasonably practicable.
Currently, the only ground for divorce in Northern Ireland is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Bill does not seek to change that. Under the present law, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is proved by using one of five facts. Those are adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion for a continuous period of two years, two years’ separation with the consent of the respondent, or five years’ separation. Three quarters of Northern Irish petitioners use separation facts, in sharp contrast to England where three quarters of petitioners use fault facts. When people in Northern Ireland use fault facts, they are most likely to use unreasonable behaviour.
Our research showed that the most common behaviours complained of were violence and alcoholism. Although many consultees felt that separation was an appropriate basis for divorce, there was also a strong feeling that the law must protect those who had suffered during their marriages because of their spouses’ behaviour. A fault fact, therefore, had to remain available.
Clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, retains irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce in Northern Ireland, as evidenced by three facts: two years’ separation with the respondent’s consent; three years’ separation; and unreasonable behaviour.
The periods of separation balance the need for enough time to prove irretrievable breakdown with the need to avoid delay for an unreasonable time in accessing financial remedies and arrangements for children. Consultees thought that the existing two-year period with the respondent’s consent was appropriate, and I concur. A wider range of views was taken in relation to the five-year fact, but there was a strong feeling among consultees that five years was too long to deny people remedies from the divorce courts. I have, therefore, chosen three years. That period is long enough to demonstrate that the marriage has indubitably died, but not so long as to deny access to court.
As consultees identified, some petitioners require divorce to be on the basis of fault for religious reasons or because they suffered greatly while married. Some actions so destroy the soul of a marriage that as a result a reasonable person would conclude that the petitioner could not be expected to live with his or her partner. Present law formulates that sentiment as:
"The Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with him/her".
In legal shorthand, that is referred to as "unreasonable behaviour", which is broad enough to cover the variety of behaviours that can cause a marriage to break down. I intend to retain that definition as the fault ground.
Members should not be concerned that the adultery fact will no longer appear in the primary legislation. Adultery strikes at the heart of marriage and cannot be tolerated. It is not my intention to detract from the seriousness of adulterous acts or to belittle their effect on the wronged party or on the trust that is the foundation of marriage.
The legal definition of adultery is limited. In the law only the act of full, penetrative vaginal intercourse counts as adultery, and proof of that act is required. Other forms of sexual infidelity are not legally regarded as adultery. Providing proof of adultery is prurient, difficult and often degrading for the petitioner. Under the Bill, adultery will still appear in the divorce petition, but the petitioner could also include any other connected behaviour that he or she had to endure, such as unexplained absences, changes in mood and sums of money spent in mysterious and unexplained ways.
The substantive law, therefore, has not changed. Adultery is still grounds for a divorce. The law takes sexual infidelity seriously and condemns it. Including adultery in the "unreasonable behaviour" fact will make the law easier to understand and will remove the technical and illogical legal differences between acts of sexual betrayal.
The Bill removes the legal fact of desertion, which is infrequently used, complex and difficult to prove. In all but the rarest cases, a petitioner who can rely on the fact of desertion could also use two years’ separation with consent or unreasonable behaviour as grounds for divorce. The exceptional and, perhaps, hypothetical petitioner who cannot rely on those grounds will be able to obtain a divorce using the three-year separation fact.
In line with proposals for divorce, the Bill amends the grounds for judicial separation to maintain parity. To maintain consistency throughout family law, it also amends the grounds on which a maintenance order may be obtained in the domestic proceedings court.
Clause 3 provides that in certain strictly judicially controlled cases, the oral hearing for divorce may be dispensed with. That would be available only in separation cases where arrangements for children are settled and where the respondent consents to that course of action. Consultees indicated that in some cases hearings are a stressful and unnecessary part of the process. However, the correct checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that the system protects parties and their children, especially those whose parents have not settled and made sensible decisions about their future. That is why the court is given discretion to decide whether a case is suitable for the no-hearing route, taking into account the respondent’s consent as well as the children’s interests.
There is also a catch-all provision, which has always existed, that allows a judge to dispense with oral testimony for special reasons; for example, if the petitioner is seriously incapacitated and unable to attend court.
Clause 4 allows the decree absolute, which is the final decree that dissolves the marriage, to be automatically generated after six weeks. That removes the onus from the petitioner to apply to the court office. However, the decree can be delayed by an application by either party under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or by the respondent for financial provision in separation cases.
Clause 5 makes provision for suitable cases to be adjourned for mediation. That process enables parties to meet a trained individual and work through the remaining issues in the marriage, such as finances or arrangements for children. It is not reconciliation; it is an alternative dispute-resolution method that is helpful to some, but not all, couples. That is why the court is given discretion to adjourn cases for the purpose of referral to mediation. That power is extended to judicial separation cases and to those under the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.
Clauses 6 and 7 concern the grounds of application for financial provision under the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the 1980 Order. The present fault grounds will be amended to reflect the divorce grounds in the Bill. The "failure to maintain" ground will be amended in order to sound less adversarial by adding the words
"ought in all the circumstances of the case".
That takes into account the applicant’s need and the respondent’s ability to pay, and is designed to reduce the acrimony of the proceedings without changing the outcome of the case.
Clauses 9 to 11 address three anomalous areas of family law that must be amended so that the United Kingdom can ratify protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The three anomalies are: the presumption of advancement; the common-law duty of a husband to maintain his wife; and the rule on housekeeping moneys. Since protocol 7 requires equal treatment in the law between husband and wife, those technical areas must be changed.
The presumption of advancement between husband and wife is a legal doctrine that affects property ownership between them. If a husband gives property to his wife, it is deemed to be a gift. However, if a wife gives property to her husband, she retains an interest in it, and her husband holds it in trust for her. That doctrine does not always reflect the intentions of the parties and can lead to unfair results in some cases. The Bill abolishes that presumption and will, therefore, allow the parties’ intentions to determine where property ownership lies.
The Bill will abolish the common-law duty that a husband should maintain his wife. That duty has been usurped by more modern primary legislation, such as the 1980 Order, but was never explicitly removed from the common law.
The rule on housekeeping moneys can lead to unfair results. Currently, any housekeeping allowance that a husband gives to his wife remains his property, including property that is purchased from the allowance. Even lottery or pools winnings that the wife wins using housekeeping money will theoretically belong to the husband. Again, that does not generally reflect modern conditions or the intentions of the parties. Clause 11 states that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, money derived and property acquired from the allowance shall be treated as belonging to each party equally.
The remainder of the Bill’s clauses and its schedules are technical in nature and deal with amendments and repeals of the existing legislation. They also contain provisions in relation to interpretation and commencement.
The provisions of the Bill will have an effect on court procedure, so commencement will depend on making new court rules, which are the statutory instruments that govern court procedure. My Department will liaise closely with the Northern Ireland Court Service on this.
The Bill is a reflection of the ever-changing nature of society and the need to review the law periodically to reflect society’s needs. It will not bring about root-and-branch reform but will refine and hone existing legislation and make the law easier to understand for those who use it.
Divorce is not a pleasant subject. It is not an option that any of us want to face or have our friends or family members face. However, it happens for all sorts of reasons and to all sorts of people. I want a divorce system that supports people as much as possible during a difficult period in their lives, and I consider that the Bill will achieve that. I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and his explanation of the Bill. Its general principles and objectives include an aspiration to minimise the distress to the parties involved and their children.
The Bill’s intention to promote good post-divorce relationships between parties and between them and their children and to remove any risk of domestic violence to one of the parties in the marriage or to the children is to be welcomed. The Bill provides practical measures to support those aspirations and includes a provision to make it easier to change a fault-based divorce to a separation-based divorce and thus reduce acrimony. It also empowers courts to adjourn cases to allow mediation and enables couples to agree future arrangements for their children and their finances. The procedural changes enable some people to choose not to have a hearing. In addition to that, the Bill provides for several anomalies in the family property law to be addressed to enable the British Government to ratify protocol 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Office of Law Reform has briefed the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the principles and details of the Bill. There has also been departmental consultation. The level of pre-introduction consultation is welcomed, and the Office of Law Reform’s treatment of the Bill is a good example for the future.
We all have personal views on the permanence or otherwise of marriage and the issue of divorce. The law permits divorce on the grounds of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and that is a reality. Given that, any measures to reduce the associated acrimony and bitterness should be recognised and welcomed.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel will examine in detail the key issues arising from the Bill and will take evidence from interested groups. If the Bill passes the Second Stage, the Committee will place a public notice in newspapers inviting written submissions.
The Committee is concerned about the permanence of marriage and its perception of the ongoing effort of some groups to undermine the sanctity of marriage. The Committee wishes to be reassured that the intention is not simply to provide a facility for quicker divorces but to reduce the inevitable distress and hurt experienced when a relationship irretrievably breaks down. The Committee wishes to see greater efforts made to strengthen the concept of marriage and to support couples in difficulty.
The Committee will examine the Bill and its provisions in detail, report its findings and make recommendations to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Family Law (Divorce etc.) Bill.
The aims of the Bill, as expressed, for example, in clause 1, which deals with the effect on parties and any children, are laudable. However, I am concerned about what may be the unintentional by-products of the Bill and their possibly negative social consequences. My concerns relate mainly to the so-called facts — the factors that the courts must consider to establish whether a marriage has broken down irretrievably.
I wish to pay particular attention to clause 2, which replaces article 3(2) of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The proposed new paragraph 2(b) reduces the required separation period without consent from five years to three years. Whatever may be argued to the contrary, that will make it easier to get a divorce, and it will increase the incidence of divorce.
A second change to the facts is made in the proposed new paragraph 2(c), where the categories of so-called fault — adultery, desertion, and so forth — are amalgamated under the single category of unreasonable behaviour. This implies a diminution of the seriousness of the emphasis placed on individual responsibility for actions that may grossly undermine a marriage.
It will be argued that the Bill represents a change to the law as it operates in England and Wales, other Commonwealth countries, and perhaps elsewhere. However, as England has the second-highest divorce rate in the European Union, care and due caution must be exercised with regard to imitating that example. The Minister rightly emphasised the fact that Northern Ireland’s divorce rate is substantially lower than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, which leads me to question the need for this series of major changes to the so-called facts that determine irretrievable breakdown. Apart from any consideration of the intrinsic merits of marriage and its permanence, I am concerned by the wider and negative social consequences of any further increase in the divorce rate in the Province. I am sure that that concerns all Members.
Even if the Bill succeeded in its stated intention of reducing the friction between adults who are, sadly, involved in a divorce process, there would remain a legitimate concern that the children involved would have a different experience. There is much evidence to support that concern. In 1994, ‘The Exeter Family Study: Family Breakdown and Its Impact on Children’ suggested that children involved in a divorce situation often experience more psychological distress as a result of the divorce process than as a result of any conflict between the parents during their time together. That point is made in other similar pieces of research.
I recognise the Bill’s good intentions, and, as the Minister rightly said, there is a requirement that certain laws be changed, given various human rights and European considerations. However, with regard to the facts, the Bill contains a fundamentally unsound assumption that it is mainly the divorce process and how it proceeds that determine the degree of acrimony in the marriage breakdown. Surely it is the acrimony that predates and causes the breakdown.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to highlight some of my concerns about the Bill, and I trust that the Committee will consider these late points.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Second Stage of the Bill. The Assembly has a duty to provide essential public services and to make provision on essential everyday living issues. It has already been stated, and reiterated by the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, that divorce is a sad reality in Northern Ireland, and we have a duty to do all that we can to ensure that people faced with difficult circumstances are protected legally and are supported in rebuilding their lives as painlessly as possible.
Members have raised some concerns, and there are also concerns in the wider public, that, in introducing the Bill, divorce is being made easier. The Minister should clarify whether the Bill does make divorce easier. He should also reassure the Assembly that, in the drafting of the legislation, individuals and relevant groups had a full say on the Bill’s contents. Can the Minister outline the type of consultation undertaken, and how wide that was?
The Executive have said that they are committed to promoting the family and to protecting the rights of children. I welcome the inclusion in the statement of principles of the fact that children’s interests are important in divorce proceedings, during which the focus is mostly put on the husband and wife. Children are often overlooked. The Minister should tell us what his Department is doing to ensure that mediation is put in place specifically for children caught up in a divorce.
While facilitating those people faced with divorce, we should continue to strive to promote marriage. Can the Minister tell Members what the Executive are doing to promote marriage? I support the Bill.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We gave notice to the Minister, when discussing the Marriage Bill, that the Family Law (Divorce etc.) Bill would be more controversial. The Minister is well aware of the controversy that this Bill, and other Bills regarding marriage, is bound to raise.
The Minister has made clear his views on some matters today, but they are not matters that can be brushed aside by saying that the legislation should proceed because of the needs of the people. What are the needs of the people? My opinion is that the needs of the people are not served by legislation that will weaken the sanctity of marriage. The need of the people is to strengthen marriage, not to undermine marriage or to make it easier to depart from the solemn obligations entered into by those who are married. The need of this hour is not legislation for easy divorces, or using legislation to say that something is just a fault when it is far more than that. The current need is to strengthen marriage, and my party would be dedicated to the strengthening of the marriage bond and dedicated to the sanctity of marriage.
It is interesting to note that in the unfallen world, before sin entered and ruined mankind, there were two great ordinances: the ordinance of marriage and the ordinance of the holy day of God. These two ordinances are under savage attack in the world in which we live, and that indicates the sad departure of people from that which is right, true, and divinely revealed. Many people will disagree vigorously with what I am saying, but that matters not. We must realise that in this world we have two great pillars, which I believe are very important. Today, we are discussing the pillar of marriage. When we look at the laws on the statute book regarding marriage, we see how far we have departed, and how we will depart further if the Bill is accepted.
According to page 109 of the third edition of ‘Words and Phrases Legally Defined’, edited by barrister John B Saunders of Lincoln’s Inn:
"Marriage, in its origin, is a contract of natural law; it may exist between two individuals of different sexes, although no third person existed in the world, as happened in the case of the common ancestors of mankind: It is the parent, not the child, of civil society."
That is an important statement for all of us to consider. Marriage is the parent, not the child. The child can be defended properly only if proper defence is given to the parent.
The quotation continues:
"In civil society it becomes a civil contract, regulated and prescribed by law, and endowed with civil consequences. In most civilised countries, acting under a sense of the force of sacred obligations, it has had the sanctions of religion superadded: It then becomes a religious, as well as a natural, and civil contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that, because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. Heaven itself is made a party to the contract, and the consent of the individuals, pledged to each other, is ratified and consecrated by a vow to God. Dalrymple v Dalrymple"
I will quote from the case of Bethell v Hildyard:
"I am bound to hold that a union formed between a man and a woman in a foreign country, although it may there bear the name of a marriage, and the parties to it may there be designated husband and wife, is not a valid marriage according to the law of England unless it be formed on the same basis as marriages throughout Christendom, and be in its essence ‘the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’."
Marriage deals with different sexes; it is a union between a man and a woman. I have listened to the attacks made on marriage in the House of Commons, and I have been disgusted by some of the remarks that have been made there on this issue in the attempt to take away the sanctity of marriage.
Amendments must be made to the Bill. I, and others in my party, will be doing that, and we hope to sponsor important amendments in the Finance and Personnel Committee.
I do not support the Minister in taking away the importance of adultery in the present divorce legislation. He is not right when he argues that he can do that and not weaken marriage. The question of adultery goes to the very heart of marriage. Marriage should be a relationship that ties the man and his wife together in such a way that they two become one flesh. When that is violated it is not a fault but a crime, as much as the others delineated in the Ten Commandments of the law.
If it is wrong to do other things, then adultery is certainly wrong. No legislator should think that, with a simple line in a Bill, he can lessen the seriousness of that matter.
12.00
I am glad that divorces in Northern Ireland are fewer than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should be glad of that and should aim at strengthening, rather than weakening, marriage. That is a matter to which we should all attend. This Bill deserves the closest possible scrutiny of every Member in the House. There should also be a thorough examination of some of the implications that will naturally flow from it.
Changing the five-year period to three years has been mooted. That is also a very serious matter. If parties are unable to come to the courts to deal with their divorces on the basis of the law that we are about to pass but, by default, as it were, wait the current five years, it is a break-up. If they must instead wait only three years, that will release the pressure on them. Those matters need extremely careful consideration.
There is a great difference between the view taken by the Bible and by our Lord Jesus Christ on marriage and that which is common in this country today. That is sad, for a happy country is one with happy and permanent marriages. I have been involved in pastoral work in Belfast for 56 years; what a delight it is to celebrate with those who have been married for 50 or 60 years. Their marriages have stood the test of time, and their families have benefited. I agree with the Minister that we must think of the children of broken marriages, for no one suffers more than the child.
We should aim to mend marriages and put our weight behind the movement that we need in our land to re-establish the sanctity and honour of marriage and the solemn obligation of those who marry. The common idea that, if things do not work out, a person can get a divorce, is not the way to enter a marriage. The couple should enter marriage to make it work.
All of us who have happy marriages know that we must work at them. Marriages do not run smoothly, because of the many weaknesses in human nature. However, we should all work to see that we keep one of the most precious commodities in the world, one which means much to the future of our nation because of its effect on the children whom we bring up and train in the ways of truth and righteousness.
I look forward to the amendments that my Colleagues on the Committee for Finance and Personnel will move, to reading the record of the debates in that Committee and to a time when we return to the House to deal with this matter again.

Mr Seamus Close: As one who is, if I might use the phrase, firmly wedded to the concept of marriage and the belief that it is the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into to the exclusion of all others for life, I have difficulty with any alternative procedures that might undermine its importance. Marriage, and thus the family, forms the very basis — the nucleus — of any society. It therefore goes without saying that the destabilising of that institution has a profound impact on society itself.
We have only to look around us in today’s imperfect world to see the relevance and the truth of that statement. If we further undermine the institution of marriage, future generations will be all the poorer for any failure to adhere to the clear definition, meaning and understanding of what marriage is about.
Having been happily married for more than 24 years, I have some experience of the importance and meaning of marriage, and its immeasurable benefits. Having said that, I recognise that we live in a real and imperfect world. As Members of the Assembly, we have to address unpalatable facts in an impartial manner. With that in mind, I look forward to the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and the amendments that have been suggested.
In recognising the unpalatable law of the land that permits divorce due to the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, we must ensure that bitterness and acrimony are minimised. Although the intent of the Bill may be to reduce bitterness and acrimony, and ensure that any children of a marriage that breaks down irretrievably suffer less hurt, I do not need to remind the House of the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I am conscious that Northern Ireland has a lower divorce rate than other parts of the UK and Europe. I shall, therefore, seek to ascertain why, if that is the case, we want to change the legislation, particularly through clause 2, which could be interpreted as making divorce easy. We have heard the expression "quickie divorce". We do not need quickie divorces: they are not in the interest of the people of Northern Ireland, for whom we should be ensuring a better future.
Clause 2, which lowers the separation requirement from five years to three, causes me concern. I also share the concerns expressed by Dr Birnie and Dr Paisley about the amalgamation of fault. It is subject to interpretation. How can the great fault of adultery be minimised, dismissed and amalgamated with other problems? That is a gross underestimation of the seriousness of adultery, and, in so doing, the Bill undermines the importance of the state of marriage. That issue must be carefully scrutinised and sorted out.
I do not have any particular problem with clauses 8, 9 and 10, which deal with housekeeping money and duty of maintenance. Many of those matters are anomalous and probably obsolete but do not cause the same concern as clause 2.
In looking forward to the examination of the Bill, I assure Dr Paisley, who has made a plea that it should receive close scrutiny, that as a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Close will be giving scrutiny to the Bill.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am glad that Seamus Close recognises that some things are obsolete and must be changed. The spirit of the Family Law (Divorce etc.) Bill involves looking at what real marriages are like today and trying to provide for them in legislation.
As regards the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, perhaps some Members have not read the Bill. It does not remove adultery from the law — a divorce granted on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown can still be obtained on proof of an act of adultery, just as it is under present law. The Minister, in his opening statement, said that as there are so few people proceeding on grounds of adultery that it does not seem reasonable to make that one of the main grounds for divorce. Most petitioners now cite unreasonable behaviour as the cause of the irretrievable or irreconcilable breakdown of their marriage.
In past years, unreasonable behaviour was something that people kept behind closed doors — as the title of a book on domestic violence once said, ‘Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will Hear’. Those suffering from domestic violence are no longer prepared to scream quietly but prefer to use the courts and the law of the land.
There are 3,500 cases of common assault by one partner on another in Northern Ireland every year. There are on average five murders every year. There is a case of actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm on one partner — usually the wife — in Northern Ireland every day. Those are the police statistics. However, the police would argue that the figures — other than those for murder, which come to the public’s attention — are a gross underestimation. They estimate that it is more likely that there are about 10,000 cases of common assault in marriages every year in Northern Ireland.
Rather than the words we have heard from some Members about keeping the family together at all costs, they should be asking — for the sake of the children — at what cost should the family be kept together? Is it at the enormous cost of wives — and husbands — presenting to nurses and doctors in the accident and emergency departments of major hospitals with serious injuries sustained within marriage? It is to be hoped that, in addressing this situation, Members will provide the right for those so injured to be able to leave such an injured marriage. A marriage that causes such enormous grief ought to be ended because it is not a marriage of equality. That is what clause 2 is about.
Members who have done any work in this area or who have interviewed those affected will know why the Bill seeks to reduce the five-year requirement to three years. As public representatives, they will have had women in their constituency offices telling how their husbands have said, "If I can’t have you, no one else will". When those women seek justice and redress through the law they have to wait five years because respondents will not permit them to have their marriages ended after two years. Possessiveness, jealousy, control and power over the partner are exercised, and the law is used accordingly. That is why many petitioners in Northern Ireland — and in Northern Ireland alone — have had to wait five years.
Why should people who could live independently, walk free from such violence, and raise their children in peace, be made to live like that for longer than they need to?
That is why the terms have changed from five years to three. The condition of consent as it applied in the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 will remain in the new Bill, but three years of separation will now suffice in its absence, on the grounds that it should not be held over the partner who seeks that redress of the court.
Anyone who suggests that the notion of fault has been removed should read the Bill, because it still allows the petitioner to go to court on the grounds of fault. Research shows that three quarters of Northern Ireland petitioners do not argue fault; they are probably so stigmatised that they cannot publicly talk about about why their marriages broke down, and they find other reasons such as the fact and duration of separation. Perhaps the time has come to allow people to come before the courts to speak about what has gone on behind closed doors.
In response to Dr Birnie’s concern about the children of divorced parents, the same research points to the fact that they have been enormously disturbed if the marriage continues and if there is violence and abuse. Children studies have said that they can go to bed and sleep in peace at night now, rather than lying awake wondering if they could save their mothers from further injury or death.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Such research shows that, on average, children deem that they suffer less psychological distress in the continuing marriage than the reverse. The Member is arguing about the sad and hard cases, which I accept.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am glad that the Member accepts that. I wish that we could use the word "hard", but that is no longer the case. The children said that the emotional and psychological damage was often as bad as the physical and that it takes more years to recover from what was said than what was done. We are introducing the concept of psychiatric injury into law today to recognise the experience of mental harm as well as that of physical harm.
The requirement for oral testimony to be dispensed with is also a positive step. Research has shown that petitioners have felt no benefit from giving oral testimony where there has been consent. The Bill still allows the court to have discretion. Why are there no savings as a result of that? The changes proposed in the Bill will cost £117,736, but a great deal of money could be saved if there were no longer any requirement for oral testimony, which endures only in Northern Ireland. Most people who have gone through that process agree that it is a waste of money.
Are the figures before us the maximum savings or a rough estimate? The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the right to mediation, as outlined in clause5, will be cost neutral. However, I warn the Minister in his finance capacity that it will not be done well if there is no cost or if it is cost neutral. People will need to be well trained in mediation skills as it is now written into the legislation. I am glad that it has been recognised that mediation may not be a useful tool where there has been domestic violence. I urge those involved in the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill to recognise that, because it is often very late in the court proceedings before there is a right to say that domestic violence has taken place.
I welcome clauses 10 and 11, which improve equality of opportunity. Clause 11 replaces the outdated laws relating to housekeeping allowances. The inequality that once existed is summed up by an old Russian proverb:
"I thought that I saw two people, but it was only a man and his wife".
The legislation recognises that the reverse applies: clause 10 addresses the automatic assumption that a husband has a common law duty to maintain his wife, and clause 11 abolishes the husband’s right to keep the entire housekeeping allowance. As Mr Close said, the Bill recognises that the law upholds some obsolete practices that must be changed.
Finally, the Minister must address the human rights issue. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
"In relation to the question of separate representation of children in private law proceedings affecting them (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 12) the Law Reform Advisory Committee is currently seeking the permission of the Minister for Finance and Personnel to consider this matter."
Has that matter been considered seriously? The right of the child to be represented separately is argued in the courts with increasing frequency, especially in acrimonious divorce proceedings.

Mr Peter Weir: I have certain concerns about the Bill. In passing, however, it was brave of a Finance Minister to state that spending money "in mysterious and unexplained ways" could constitute unreasonable behaviour.
The Bill contains several aspects to which I have no objection. Clause 1 contains good statements of intent regarding children and domestic violence. There is no objection to clauses 5 to 8, which deal with grounds for mediation and the use of less pejorative language with regard to financial provisions. Similarly, no one objects to the changes to antiquated legislation detailed in clauses 9 to 11. However, I have severe reservations about clauses 2 and 4.
The DUP recognises that marriages break down and that the state must intervene on occasion. However, it does not suggest, as Ms McWilliams did, that marriage should be upheld "at all costs". No one from these Benches used that phrase. It would be wrong for the Member to put words in the mouths of some of the people who expressed concerns. The DUP supports the institution of marriage. It believes that society has a duty to support the family unit and the sanctity of marriage. Ms Lewsley posed the key question when she asked whether the Bill would make divorce easier. Undoubtedly, clause 2 will make divorce easier.
Two aspects have been highlighted in particular. The removal of adultery as a separate ground for divorce sends out the wrong signal. I take issue with what Ms McWilliams said; no one on this side of the House has suggested that fault-based grounds have been removed completely. However, the three grounds for divorce have been rolled into one. In this Bill adultery is no longer accepted as a direct cause for divorce. It may be a contributory factor, or an action that might constitute unreasonable behaviour. In essence, the Bill downgrades the seriousness of adultery. That sends out damaging signals to society about morality.
As a barrister with experience of working on divorce cases, I disagree with the Minister’s implication that adultery is a high hurdle. It is not next to impossible to prove, as has been suggested. To put adultery on a level with unusual spending habits is to downgrade its significance.
We will be seeking an amendment to reinstate adultery as a separate ground for divorce. We will not accept the downgrading of adultery, as it damages the concept of marriage.
Reducing the separation period from five years to three years will, undoubtedly, lead to more divorce. It makes divorce easier. At present, there is the option of two years with the consent of both parties, which is continued in the Bill. However, if the divorce is opposed by one party, simply adding on another year renders that consent meaningless. There must be a significant gap between divorce with the consent of both parties and divorce where the desire of one party, however motivated, is to save the marriage. Reducing the separation period will have a major impact on that.
I also take exception to clause 2. In clause 1 there is reference to violence against one of the parties. However, there is no reference to domestic violence in clause 2. It does not change the law on domestic violence by one iota. Preserving clause 2 as it stands will aid no one experiencing domestic violence. If it is passed unamended it will lead to easier divorce. Therefore my party will be seeking amendments to reinstate the grounds of adultery and to restore the five years’ separation without consent.
An amendment may be necessary to the change in the application for the decree absolute. At present, when a decree nisi is granted, a separate application must be made to obtain the decree absolute. A positive act on behalf of the petitioner is required before a decree absolute is made. The Bill shifts the burden so that the petitioner must intervene negatively to stop the decree absolute being granted. It is clear that that will make divorce easier.
In conclusion, we will be seeking amendments on these matters. It is often said that we live in a disposable society — a throwaway society in which things are not valued. The Assembly should make it clear that marriage is not to be part of that throwaway society. We place value on marriage and, as such, some of those changes will diminish the sanctity of marriage. Therefore we will not accept the Bill as it stands.

Mr Speaker: Members have put a substantial number of questions to the Minister, and it would be inappropriate to ask him to respond at this stage, as there remains only a few minutes. I therefore propose that the House by leave suspend until 2.00 pm, resuming with the response from the Minister.
The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Dr Sean Farren: I am grateful for the contributions that have been made during the debate. Many concerns have been expressed, and I hope, as the Bill progresses through the Committee Stage, and the other remaining stages, that departmental officials and I will have the opportunity to assuage some of those concerns as we explain in more detail the purpose of the Bill and the effects of its clauses.
None of us wants to see the breakdown of marriages that have started with so much hope and promise. Marriage is not usually entered into lightly, and family life forms vital foundations in society. However, in one way or another, all Members have acknowledged that divorce is a fact, however regrettable. Relationships break down to the extent that they cannot be retrieved. That is where the Bill comes in. It deals with a situation in which people’s marriages have broken down irretrievably, and it endeavours to deal with the parties involved as humanely as possible.
Mr Molloy referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s forthcoming scrutiny of the Bill. I appreciated his acknowledgement of the work of the Office of Law Reform in the pre-introduction phase. The Office of Law Reform has welcomed the willingness of the Committee to engage with it as it moves through the pre-introduction process, and it affirms its commitment to early consultation.
Although Dr Birnie accepts that the aims of the legislation are laudable, he was concerned by what he described as the "unintentional by-products" of the Bill’s proposals. Other Members shared his concerns about the reduction of the requirement of five years’ separation to three years. After the consultation process, the Department’s view was that, when a couple decide to separate, five years was too long a period to deny people access to a court to reorder their financial and childcare issues. Parties will usually have spent considerable time in coming to the decision to end their marriage. The three-year period does not start with the first disagreement. It is the beginning of a legal process, which may follow a significant period during which two spouses have been trying to reconcile themselves. Therefore, I consider that three years of living separately is long enough to establish that a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Once that fact is established, the parties can start to build a new life.
Dr Birnie, Rev Dr Ian Paisley and others expressed their concern that adultery is no longer included on the face of the Bill. In respect of the changes to the fault facts, the current law on adultery is complex, narrow, technical, prurient and difficult to prove. Adultery is, however, a serious matter, and the Bill’s proposals do not make it any less serious. It does not remove adultery as a fault fact. The Bill’s formulation provides greater protection to the petitioner, and it is less onerous and humiliating for the petitioner with regard to what must be proved.
Dr Birnie and Prof McWilliams referred to strands of research into the effects of divorce on children. Different researchers have come to different conclusions about what is best for children, and I welcome the reference to the research that has been made in the debate.
However, the issue concerns individual family units. What is right in each case will vary. Families must find what is best in each of their individual situations. Marriage support services, the legal profession and the courts all have their role to play in finding the proper course in each case.
Ms Lewsley asked several questions, the first of which suggested that the Bill will make divorce easier. The Bill is not about making divorce easier or more difficult. It does not alter the ground for divorce, as many Members seem to claim. The ground for divorce remains the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Bill attempts to streamline procedures, which will help a couple whose marriage has irretrievably broken down to part as amicably as possible. Moreover, arrangements will be put in place for children.
Ms Lewsley asked a question about consultation. I am pleased to assure her that, as always, the Office of Law Reform consulted widely and received well-informed, substantive responses. We were especially grateful for responses from the Churches and the voluntary sector, as well as those from political parties and members of the public. The research commissioned by the Office of Law Reform, which informed its consultation paper, was based not only on an extensive questionnaire survey of the views of people who were in the throes of divorce but on face-to-face interviews with people who had gone through the process, as well as judges and legal and other professionals who operate the system. There was an extensive consultation process, which was supported by comprehensive and wide-ranging research.
I affirm to Ms Lewsley that support for children and their families is at the heart of the Programme for Government. The commitment to putting in place a children’s commissioner and a strategy for children and young people demonstrates the value that the Executive put on children and on family life in general. The Bill makes provision for couples whose relationship has irretrievably broken down. The law on divorce already provides that a court can adjourn for attempts at reconciliation if it believes that that is a possibility.
Ms Lewsley raised an important point about children and the mediation process. I shall ensure that the officials who are examining the mediation process will take it on board.
I thank Mr Close for his comments; I hope that I have dealt with many of his points about the period of separation and adultery.
I thank Ms McWilliams for raising the issue of domestic violence. It is a scourge and a cancer in Northern Ireland, and I welcome any opportunity to raise its profile. I intend that the Bill will continue to raise the profile of domestic violence, therefore bringing it out into the open and allowing victims to break free from the cycle of violence and silence that frequently envelops their experiences.
Ms McWilliams mentioned cost savings. I appreciate her observations, but I certainly do not want cost saving to be seen as a purpose of the Bill. The change to the law on hearings will not reduce court scrutiny, which will take place in a different way. Many cases need a hearing, and some people want a hearing. Therefore, hearings must be provided in those cases.
Ms McWilliams also raised a point about the separate representation of children. She will be glad to know that the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland will consider separate representation of children in private law proceedings under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. I expect that the Law Reform Advisory Committee will consult, as is its pattern, on that issue, and I am sure that it will be pleased to receive Ms McWilliams’s views.
I hope that my comments have dealt with Mr Weir’s major points. I shall welcome hearing more of his concerns as to how the introduction of a new process for the generation of decrees absolute will make divorce easier. I regard that as a practical procedural initiative only.
The Bill is a measured response to the needs of society in Northern Ireland. It is not a root-and-branch reform, but an opportunity to review whether the Northern Ireland divorce system —24 years after it was set down in legislation — has unnecessarily added to the stress and acrimony that accompany divorce. The Bill will support individuals as they face difficult times in their lives and will highlight the needs of children in the divorce process. Those are worthy aims for any divorce system, and the content of the Bill is to be commended.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Family Law (Divorce etc.) Bill (NIA 01/02) be agreed.

State Pension Credit Bill: Second Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the State Pension Credit Bill (NIA 4/02) be agreed.
The Bill will make provisions for Northern Ireland corresponding to those made for Great Britain under the State Pension Credit Act 2002, which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2002. Therefore, it is a parity measure.
As I said during the debate on accelerated passage for the Bill and during the debate on the Second Stage of the Social Security Bill, there has always been parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as regards social security legislation. I emphasise that that is how it should be. People in Northern Ireland pay the same National Insurance contributions and the same taxes as people elsewhere in the country, and it is right and proper that they should receive the same benefits at the same time and at the same rates. Moreover, parity legislation enables Northern Ireland to use Great Britain’s computer systems, which is much more cost-effective than setting up a separate computer system here.
Parity covers the content of legislation and the timing of its implementation. New provisions have always been introduced here at the same time as in the rest of the country, and that arrangement should continue.
Pension credit marks the end of a fundamental unfairness in the social security system. From the early days of the modern welfare state, people who made provision for themselves were penalised for their efforts. I am sure that every Member has met pensioners living on modest incomes who have often struggled to put aside money for their retirement and who feel that they have been let down. They find that they are little or no better off than people who have saved nothing. Although it is necessary to concentrate on helping the poorest pensioners, those who have saved a modest amount for their retirement should be rewarded, not penalised, for their thrift and effort. In addition, the obstacles that put people off taking their pension entitlement must be tackled. Pension credit offers a solution that provides substantial sums to help the least well-off and tapers that help for pensioners at the higher end of the income distribution. Pension credit will tackle pensioner poverty in a precise way, and it will ease the disincentive to save that has been inherent in the social security system.
The State Pension Credit Bill will provide extra help for around half of all pensioners in Northern Ireland. Some 120,000 pensioners stand to gain an average of £400 a year, while some will gain up to £1,000 a year. With pension credit, the poorest one third of pensioners will gain, on average, an extra £8·20 a week. Pension credit will add £50 million to the money that pensioners at the lower end of the income distribution are entitled to receive. By contrast, spending the same amount on increasing the basic state pension would result in a gain of only £3·20 a week, which would be £5 a week less. The least well-off pensioners will gain over two and a half times more with pension credit than if the money were spread thinly by raising everyone’s pensions.
At present, 75,000 pensioners receive a minimum income guarantee. That has increased the incomes of the poorest pensioners by at least £15 a week over and above inflation. Clause 2 sets out how the pension credit will build on that approach and lift pensioners out of poverty.
It is also necessary to ensure that it pays to save, and that is the purpose of the Bill. The pension credit will address a fundamental unfairness in the system. For the first time, we shall be able to tell people that if they save even modest amounts above the basic state pension, they will be rewarded for their efforts. It will pay to save.
The pension credit will work in two ways. First, it replaces the minimum income guarantee as the means to provide a floor below which pensioners’ incomes should not fall. In 2003, pension credit will increase single pensioners’ entitlement to a guaranteed minimum of £100 a week, or £154 for couples. Clause 2 also provides for a higher minimum income guarantee for carers and pensioners with severe disabilities: £140 for a single person, or £194 for couples. Secondly, and critically, the pension credit will provide an additional top-up to reward pensioners aged 65 or over who have saved for their retirement. Clause 3 will ensure that pensioners aged 65 or over who have a modest occupational pension or modest savings will receive more as a result of their thrift. It will give pensioners a cash addition of 60p for every £1 of their income above the level of the basic state pension, up to a maximum of £13·80 a week for a single person and £18·60 for a couple. The reward for savings ensures that those who have put something aside for their retirement will be better off for having done so.
Although pension credit may seem complicated, it is fundamentally a simple and straightforward concept. To ensure that Members have a grasp of it, and to illustrate the real gains to pensioners from the pension credit, I shall give an example of how it will work in practice. Pensioners with a full basic state pension of £77 a week will receive the maximum guaranteed credit of £23. Their total income will, therefore, be £100. As they do not have a qualifying income from savings or an occupational pension, they will not receive a savings credit. On the other hand, pensioners with the full basic state pension of £77 a week and an occupational pension of, for example, £12 will receive a guaranteed credit of £11 to bring their income up to the £100 maximum guarantee. The amount of the savings credit will be 60p for every £1 of qualifying income above the basic state pension. In that case, therefore, a pensioner will receive a savings credit of £7·20, giving him or her a total income of £107·20.
The guaranteed minimum for carers and severely disabled people would be increased. A single, severely disabled pensioner, with £77 state pension and £10 occupational pension, would receive a guaranteed credit of £53 to bring his or her income up to the £140 personal guaranteed minimum. In addition to that, he or she would also receive a savings credit of £6, giving a total income of £146.
That is fairly simple arithmetic. However, as is the case with any pension entitlement, pensioners do not have to do the calculation. What is important is that they know that they are entitled to apply. In general, pensioners will qualify if their incomes are up to approximately £135 for single people or £200 for couples.
Many pensioners think that there is a stigma attached to receiving income support. The process of reporting changes in income puts many people off claiming that support. They therefore lose out and risk poverty. To tackle pensioner poverty seriously, an income assessment must be undertaken to help claimants. There is nothing new about that.
Under the current rules, pensioners must report every change in their circumstances from week to week. However, with pension credit, they will be asked for the information only when it is needed to work out their benefit. For example, we will only need to know about their savings that are over £6,000.
The pension credit capital rules have been designed to promote saving. The current rule, which excludes pensioners with savings of £12,000 or more, will be abolished. Also, the first £6,000 will be ignored, meaning that 85% of people who claim pension credit will not need to disclose their savings. For savings above £6,000, a notional rate of income will be assumed. It will be set at 10%, which is half the current assumed rate of income in the minimum income guarantee, which stands at approximately 20%. Therefore, if a pensioner saves £10,000, the current minimum income guarantee rules assume an income of £16 a week, whereas under pension credit, only £8 a week would be assumed.
With the introduction of pension credit, the weekly means test for pensioners will be abolished from the age of 65. Most pensioners will have their awards set for long periods, normally five years at a time, which will reduce the intrusion that many of them rightly complain about. It will encourage them to claim money that is rightfully theirs, and it will help to tackle pensioner poverty.
It is expected that between half and two thirds of the pension credit group will remain on benefit for at least five years. By the time pension credit replaces the minimum income guarantee, it is estimated that 120,000 pensioners will be entitled to it.
When pensioners reach the age of 65, the majority find that their income is settled and their circumstances are stable. Therefore, there is no need to continue to impose on them the requirement to report every little change that may happen from week to week. They will be asked to report only major changes in their lives, such as the death of a spouse. However, they will be able to ask for their pension credit to be increased at any time, should their other sources of income be reduced.
Clauses 6 to 10 contain the principles of the five-year awards and the reassessment of income during that period. The Bill will provide more for the poorest pensioners and will help present and future pensioners to avoid poverty. It is a substantial reform that will benefit about half of pensioners in Northern Ireland. It helps to tackle poverty; it rewards thrift and saving; and it will benefit 120,000 pensioners by an average of £400 a year. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the State Credit Pension Bill (NIA 04/02) be agreed.

Social Security Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Social Security Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Employment Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Dr Esmond Birnie: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 18 October 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill (NIA 11/01).
The Employment Bill received its Second Stage reading on 5 June 2002 and was referred to the Committee for Employment and Learning on 6 June 2002. It is important legislation that will introduce a series of measures designed to help employees better balance their family life with their employment responsibilities, while taking into account the needs of businesses.
The measures include amendments to existing legislation to improve maternity rights, a provision for two weeks’ paid paternity leave, adoption leave and pay for parents, and a duty on employers to consider seriously requests from parents with young or disabled children to work flexible hours.
The Committee is committed to ensuring that it carries out its responsibilities fully in rigorously scrutinising the Bill. Members have discussed the Bill at eight meetings, and we have received oral and written submissions from several interested parties.
Several proposed amendments have been debated, and to ensure that due and proper consideration is given to them, the Committee seeks an extension to 18 October to allow it sufficient time to consider the Bill fully and to report its findings. We intend to complete our work as quickly as possible, and I assure Members that we will not take any more time than is absolutely necessary to ensure that all the legislation is in place before the dissolution of the House. I ask Members for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 18 October 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill (NIA 11/01).

Housing Support Services Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Housing Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Mr Donovan McClelland: As the next two motions relate to the extension of Committee Stages of housing legislation, I propose to conduct only one debate. I shall call the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development to move the motion, and there will then be a debate on both motions. When all those who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Chairperson to do the winding-up speech and will put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Chairperson to move the second motion before putting the Question without further debate. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr Fred Cobain: I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 13 December 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Housing Support Services Bill (NIA 23/01).
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 13 December 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Housing Bill (NIA 24/01). — [The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Cobain).]
The Housing Support Services Bill and the Housing Bill, both important pieces of legislation, which passed Second Stage on 3 July after some debate, presently stand referred to the Committee for Social Development.
The Housing Support Services Bill seeks to introduce a new method for funding the costs associated with providing housing support services for vulnerable people who live in supported accommodation. Although the Bill has eight clauses, the Committee is concerned that they are scrutinised fully. We are also anxious to examine that Bill in the context of the Housing Bill before reporting back to the Assembly.
Before the Housing Bill’s belated introduction to the Assembly, there was great anticipation and much speculation about this long-awaited legislation. It is substantial in volume and content, having no less than 150 clauses and five schedules. It is the first piece of housing legislation to emerge in Northern Ireland for 10 years, and the Assembly has a duty of care to ensure that its wide-ranging provisions are given the utmost scrutiny.
It attempts to deal with a host of issues by introducing new provisions or amending existing legislation. The main areas to be addressed in the Bill include: the conduct of tenants of premises let by the Housing Executive or registered housing associations; the payment of grants for the renewal of private sector housing; caravan sites for members of the Irish traveller community; the rent register; the allocation of housing; and registered schemes for houses in multiple occupation.
The Bill is likely to be remembered as the most important piece of legislation considered by the first mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is regrettable that we have so little time left to give the Bill the consideration that it deserves. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Committee had the foresight to conduct a major inquiry into housing matters in anticipation of the Bill’s introduction. We received much evidence and called many witnesses during that inquiry, and two reports on the subject were published in the past year, all of which should prove invaluable as we carry out this enormous task.
I hope that the House will agree that the Committee will be unable to do justice to either Bill in the 30 days prescribed in Standing Orders. The Committee is mindful, however, that there may be a desire for a significant and long-running debate on the Housing Bill after its Committee Stage. Having carefully considered the matter, the Committee believes that it could fulfil its responsibilities only if it met at least twice weekly during September, October and November, in order to examine the detail of the Housing Bill and the Housing Support Services Bill, and subsequently to produce and present associated reports to the Assembly for its consideration.
In seeking extensions on both Bills until 13 December 2002, I recognise that members of the Committee will face increasing and competing pressures in the weeks ahead. I stress how important it will be that Committee members attend the meetings and that everything possible be done to accommodate their attendance.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Cobain, there have been no requests to speak. Do you wish to make a winding-up speech, or will I put the Question?

Mr Fred Cobain: Please put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 13December 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Housing Support Services Bill (NIA 23/01).
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 13December 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Housing Bill (NIA 24/01).

Seeds (Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002: Prayer of Annulment

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move
That the Seeds (Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 257/2002) be annulled.
The entire Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has endorsed my speech, so I speak not only as the Chairperson of the Committee, but on behalf of all the Committee members. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr George Savage, asked me to apologise for his absence and to make it clear that he supports the motion. He has other urgent business to attend to.
My Committee does not want to pray against Statutory Rules — they are a prayerless bunch. However, the Committee believes that it has no option but to bring the matter before the House. This Statutory Rule, which increases seed growers’ fees by 5%, came into operation on 2 September and is a burden that the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland should not be asked to bear at this time.
At its meeting on 24 May, the Committee discussed the proposed Regulations and agreed that it could not make an informed decision without knowing the number of people who would be affected by the proposed increase, and without knowing the outcome of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s consultation exercise. The Committee had an opportunity to consider the Department’s response at its meeting on 28 June. Despite concerns raised by the Ulster Farmers’ Union in its response to the consultation exercise, the Department was determined — even at that early stage — to proceed with the introduction of the Statutory Rule. The Department’s response clearly demonstrates the reason behind that determination. It states:
"not to increase the fees would mean that those in Northern Ireland would be further out of line with those in GB, which would incur adverse comment".
The Committee did not accept that the fear of incurring "adverse comment" — presumably from Mrs Beckett — was sufficient reason to add to the industry’s financial burden. However, it reluctantly agreed that, given the relatively small number of seed growers affected, and the fact that fees in Northern Ireland would remain lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, the Department could proceed to make the Statutory Rule.
However, when the made and laid Regulations came before the Committee on 6 September, the situation for the agriculture industry had considerably, even drastically, worsened. In that meeting, the Committee resolved that the Deputy Chairperson and I should seek a meeting with Mrs Beckett. The meeting was urgently required to discuss the impact of unprecedented wet weather on the industry and the need for the United Kingdom Government to apply for EC wet weather payments on behalf of Northern Ireland producers.
In June and July this year, Northern Ireland had 155% and 150% more rainfall respectively than for the average of those months between 1961 and 1990. With that in mind, the members present at the meeting on 6 September could not approve the Statutory Rule, because, by doing so, it would add to the industry’s financial hardship. At a meeting on the matter a year ago, the Committee was adamant that, while the plight in the farming industry continued, it should not be asked to vote for an increase in payments from farmers.
My Committee wishes to send a clear message to the farming industry that it recognises its plight and will take action to help in whatever way it can. I call on the House to do likewise. I would be a happy man if I could say that problems will be over by a certain time, but the problems have yet to be solved.
Therefore, I call on the House to support the motion to annul the Seeds (Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and put this matter on hold.

Rev William McCrea: I concur with the remarks made by the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I find it strange that the Department’s answer is that it is desiring to have the payments equal to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. On 16 November 2000 I raised a matter with the Minister on pre-basic seed potatoes and Northern Ireland inspection charges, which were not the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Payment was being demanded in Northern Ireland, but it was not being paid in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I have frequently written to the Minister, and I have got answers back. I have requested meetings with the Minister since November 2000, but those requests have been refused. I intend raising with the Speaker the fact that a Minister can refuse to have a meeting with a Member of the House on such a basic matter. If fees are supposed to be basic across the United Kingdom, but are not being paid in the rest of the United Kingdom, then the Department is trying to have a bite at both cherries — it wants it both ways, and I do not accept that.
The farming industry is on its knees, and everyone can see that the farming community is facing crisis after crisis. For reasons outside of their control, no sooner are farmers out of the depths of the slough of despond than they are driven back into the depths of despair again. The Chairperson, on behalf of his Committee, has outlined that now is not a time to be putting further weight upon an industry in which farmers, for all their labours, are not even getting the basic minimum wage. That is disgraceful, and the Department must rethink this matter. I hope that the Assembly has the guts to stand up to the Department and say that it will not go along with this rise. We will endeavour to do our part to alleviate the great suffering of the farming community.
I trust that the Minister will renege on her refusal to meet me. I have many letters from her Department on that, and I have made many telephone calls trying to get answers. I trust that, even yet, she will have the decency to speak face to face with people in the potato industry who are aggrieved. Even if the answer is the same, she should at least have the honour to speak to those who are suffering and to tell them the facts, rather than relying on a review that has been promised since 16 November 2000, and which is unfinished. Something is seriously wrong, and answers could easily be provided on this matter. The potato industry, which is suffering like the rest of the farming community, deserves at least that.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Along with the rest of the Committee, I agreed on a position about this particular Regulation. This is little different to many Regulations that come through the Committee, but this is an issue on which the Committee took a stand.
We are looking here at costs that are continually being placed upon producers. Those producers have faced lower returns, a decline in their income and a decline in the entire industry on an ongoing basis over recent years. That is not the fault of the Minister, but it is caused by the fact that Britain, the member state, has policies that do not help farmers here. One of the basic problems is that the policies coming from Europe, or the member state — now led by Margaret Beckett — are damaging to the industry here. This Regulation would place additional costs on the producers of cereals; they have faced problems, as have the producers of milk or beef.
They have faced BSE and foot-and-mouth disease; tuberculosis and brucellosis have had quite rampant effects in the border counties of Armagh and Fermanagh; and lower returns — especially on milk — have signalled meltdown to many of them.
Many small farmers — and large farmers who years ago would have been sustainable — are now thinking of leaving the farming industry because they see little future in it. We do not like to admit that that is the situation, but it has happened because of increased costs, outside competition and imports that are not subject to the same Regulations or costs as local produce. It is not a level playing field. The push towards world prices and the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP) taking place in October will put further pressure on the future of the industry in this part of Ireland.
The problem is that farmers are expected to pay every time, regardless of how much has gone before. The Minister may have difficulty with that, but it does not look well for the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to be adding more costs to farmers. The farmers question how much representation they have in Europe with regard to European Regulations and the fact that it is people such as Margaret Beckett who represent them in Europe and who have the final say. We must fight to be treated as a region with its own agriculture industry and priority. That will not happen while British Ministers represent us on farming matters. All Committee members, including the Members on my right, agreed the position on that, and I cannot see why they are becoming chummy with the Minister. We should not be increasing costs now. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Billy Armstrong: We should accept that there must be an increase owing to the extremely bad weather this year. Changes are made in all sorts of issues, because nothing in life ever stays the same. However, it could be postponed until a later date and no expenses put on the agriculture industry now. We should wait until after the growing season next year, and I ask the Minister to reconsider and hold off any expenses on the farming community until then.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: It is always very difficult to follow a speech by Mr Armstrong, as he is so erudite, humorous and lengthy. His oratory has given me something to live up to.
Northern Ireland has had a terrible summer; appalling wet weather has affected the entire country in a very bad and unstable way. It has affected the farming community, who make their living by the land, in the worst possible way. On that basis the Minister should reconsider, and recognise that the potato sector is not grant-aided and does not get handouts like other sectors. It lives and falls by the marketplace, the sweat on the brows of men and women, and on what farmers put into and get out of the land. When that land has been saturated as a result of the wet weather we realise something of the problems and plight that the potato sector has had recently.
I hope that the Minister will accept that changes at this time are burdensome and ought to be rejected for that reason. I hope that she is prepared to stand down this bill, which will otherwise be sent out to potato farmers, and that she will grant them the assistance that they require so urgently. I support the prayer of annulment.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have noted Members’ comments and concerns on this matter, but I must oppose the prayer of annulment and ask for the Assembly’s support in rejecting it. Although, having heard the views of the various parties represented, I think it highly unlikely that it will be rejected, I shall make my position very clear.
Like all Departments, my Department is required to recover costs from the beneficiaries of the statutory services that it provides. The requirement that fees cover the full cost of service delivery where a benefit accrues to an individual business has been a justified policy feature of the Treasury and, in our case, the Department of Finance and Personnel for some time.
Northern Ireland sets its own seeds fees, although traditionally those have always been set at the same level as those charged in Great Britain, even though they have not been sufficient to achieve the full recoupment of operating costs. Indeed, on this occasion, the Northern Ireland seeds fees were being increased by 5% instead of 18%, the level required to keep Northern Ireland in line with its counterparts in Great Britain. I was particularly conscious that a decision not to increase the seeds fees for a second year in succession would mean my having to fund the additional costs involved from my Department’s resources again. I see no valid justification for rejecting the increase, and I wish to make that very clear. If I cannot gather fees in this way, the costs will have to come out of another part of my budget; something else will have to be cut.
On 13 May 2002 my private secretary wrote to the Clerk of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development apprising him of my Department’s intention to consult bodies representative of the local industry on the proposed fee increases. The Committee Clerk responded on 27 May 2002, stating that the Committee had considered the proposal and had resolved to await the outcome of the consultation exercise before commenting. Members also asked for some additional clarification on the proposal.
On 21 June 2002 my private secretary wrote again to the Committee, advising members of the outcome of the consultation exercise and providing the additional information sought by the Committee members on various points. On 1 July 2002 the Committee Clerk replied, stating that the Committee had considered the proposals in the light of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s consultation exercise and the additional information provided. He said that members objected in principle to fee increases and also that a member’s proposal to reject the increase had fallen by the narrowest of margins. However, the Clerk further stated that the Committee was content for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to make the Statutory Rule, having taken into account the small numbers affected, the relatively small fee increase and the information that fees payable in Northern Ireland would remain the lowest in the United Kingdom.
I sought and obtained the Committee’s approval for the Statutory Rule and proceeded on that basis. The Regulations have already come into effect. An 18% fee increase would have been needed to achieve full cost recovery in 2002-03, but I decided to limit the increase to 5%. Even with that increase, our fees will remain lower than those in Great Britain. For instance, in the case of crop inspection, £12·90 a hectare in Northern Ireland still compares very favourably with £13·20 in Scotland and £13·55 in England. The figure of £12·90 a hectare amounts to an increase of 25p an acre.
My decision to increase those fees should be supported. Annulment of the Regulations will create an unwelcome precedent and will revoke the entire basis for such fees. A new Statutory Rule will be required to reinstate the 1999 level of fees, and that will mean a waste of time and resources.
I apologise to the Chairperson of the Committee for my absence at the start of the debate: the business of the House went faster than expected. However, I have listened to some of the remarks that have been made. I am well aware of the difficult circumstances facing the farming community. My officials, the unions and the veterinary association have apprised me of those circumstances, and on my visits to farms I have seen the damage that has been done and the costs that will be incurred this winter and beyond.
I have done everything possible to help the farming community. My officials and advisers have provided technical advice to farmers from the beginning. My Department is setting winter management options in motion, which will be rolled out from Hillsborough and throughout the North. Workshops will help farmers to manage their difficult circumstances. I have received permission to use set-aside land for grazing, and I am working hard to get permission from Europe to increase the amount of advance beef premium to help with farmers’ cash-flow problems. I have also asked for a meeting with the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association and the Northern Ireland Bankers’ Association.
With regard to weather aid, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the House know that well before 1 July, when the Committee made its decision to go ahead, we were aware of the difficulties facing farmers. There was twice the normal rainfall in June. The Committee and the House knew that I had already asked the UK Minister, Margaret Beckett, to examine the possibility of seeking wet weather aid from Europe.
I do not wish to give false expectations to the farming community; the last thing they need is to be told things not as they are but as they wish them to be. We cannot begin to build a case for wet weather aid until we reach the end of the growing season. In June, I instructed my officials to monitor the situation so that if there were a case to be made, we would be able to make it. If we can prove that the loss fits the criteria that Europe requires, we will make that case for permission to have wet weather aid. However, there is no European fund to pay for that aid. I shall have to seek it from within the Northern Ireland block grant. I have already spoken to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who is aware of the difficulties. That is as far as I can go at the moment.
The farming community knows that I have its interests at heart, and that I am doing everything possible. I do not want to be lectured about what the farming community is going through as if it was something I was not aware of. At least Mr Armstrong’s comments are always consistent and honest. Sneering at Members, or trying to put them down, is of no use to our purpose, which is to deal with the serious issues facing the farming community.
Mr McCrea, or should I say Dr McCrea — I can never remember these titles — talked about not having meetings with me.
I remember having at least one meeting with Mr McCrea. He will be aware of the serious hiccup in the agriculture industry between 2000 and the end of 2001 when much of its work had to be halted and the serious crisis addressed. Many matters were put on the long finger. I told him then that there was no point in having another meeting until the review was finished and I knew what proposals were being made to the Department. That still stands. I think that Mr McCrea is confusing the fees about which he wrote to me with the fees in question here.
I do not accept that the Committee’s change of mind was because its members suddenly realised that farmers were facing difficulties. I knew that the farmers would probably face a difficult time because of the awful weather in June; the Committee may not have been aware of that, but I knew it was a possibility by the end of June. The Committee said that it was "prepared" — I shall not say "happy" because nobody is happy, and the members said that they were not happy — to accept the small fee increase for a small number of people, but a few months later it changed its mind. It will not do anything to build a good working relationship or increase my confidence in dealing with the Committee if it changes its mind. When I get a view from the Committee I want to know that I can depend on it remaining the view while I go ahead and take action.
I ask for the support of the Members in rejecting the motion to save the Committee, if nothing else, from appearing ludicrous.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development does not think it is ludicrous for its members to be fighting for the farmers, and the farmers are with the Committee all the way. If the Committee was divided and if members of the Minister’s party were not supporting it, let them say so. However, that is not what was said to me, and that was not what I was to do as Committee Chairperson.
I bitterly regret the Minister’s attitude and her implied threat that it will be hard for her to work with the Committee because its members take a different view to hers. This is a democracy. I am entitled to put the views of those whom I represent to the House.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Will the Member give way?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: No, I want to have my say and then the Minister can come in by leave of the House if she is granted leave.
I take what the Minister says as a threat, and I regret her attitude. I also regret that she implied that one member of the Committee was honest — I do not know what she thinks of the rest of us. Are we dishonest or a parcel of liars? She said at her party conference that I was a liar, so I can expect nothing less from her.
Minister, do not malign the Committee. I made it clear that the Committee had a change of heart. It is entitled to a change of heart, especially when farmers are committing suicide when their income is ludicrous compared with what is required to keep life and limb together. The Committee is also entitled to do what it can in Europe to make Mrs Beckett face up to her responsibilities, and it will continue to do that. The Committee has never raised the hopes in the hearts of the Ulster Farmers’ Union or the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association. We told them the plain truth in language that they understood. The Minister should not say that there are people going around and raising hopes.
The Minister says that the farmers should pay the fee. What about her cutting some of the salaries of the fat cats in the Department? Some £80 million are paid out in salaries in her Department. What about telling those people to take a salary cut? Do struggling farmers always have to pay for those cuts? Does the Minister not realise that the industry is on its knees? Does she want it to end up on its face? If the Minister is to have a cutting programme, she should start with her Department rather than with people who cannot even make a decent wage.
The Committee does not want to have to pray to the Minister in this way. It would prefer to argue the arrangements in Committee, but, in a time of dire crisis such as this, it is the responsibility of all Committee members to take their duty seriously. I am amazed that the Minister is stressing that this would cause a great deal of trouble: it is about time that the Department had some trouble. It is about time that the British Government realised that we are in trouble. It is about time that they got the message that farmers in Northern Ireland are not going to lie down any longer; they are going to get up and fight for their existence. What does it matter if the British Government get angry or if someone else gets angry? The poor farmers must be delivered.
I plead with the Minister to change her mind and to get the idea out of her head that everyone in the Committee is an enemy and that she has to fight them as such. I smiled today when I heard that the Minister said that she would have no regrets about getting out of my hair. Well, I will not be in her hair any longer, but the whole Committee is in her hair today. I am only a spokesperson — do not kill the messenger. The Minister should start by killing off the people in her own party who have the same views as I do. She should turn her guns on her own side before she turns them on people who are only trying to do their jobs. I regret that this issue has had to come before the House today. I also regret that, in the midst of the farmers’ dire plight, we are arguing over this matter today.
The Minister has every reason to support the Committee. Then she could face up to the row, which would be most profitable, because it would teach people that they cannot continue to whip farmers and not expect them to rise, dig in their heels and say that enough is enough.
I appeal to the House to support the Committee. It is up to Members as to how they cast their votes, but if they were in the same position as the farmers, I know how they would vote. Let us think about the farmers and about the suicides in their community. That is of great concern to me. Let us vote today to say that we are masters in our house, that we are here to help the farmers and not to obey the rules of some people who have never been in Northern Ireland and do not know what we are up against.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Seeds (Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 257/2002) be annulled.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr Donovan McClelland: I wish to advise Members on how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two hours by the Business Committee. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The mover of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and seven minutes to do the winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to do the winding-up. The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. When the debate has concluded, I shall put the Question that each amendment be made in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall put the Question on amendment No 2. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the most recent statistics on hospital waiting lists and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to put in place a policy that urgently addresses the needs of patients by reducing the number of patients and length of time spent on these waiting lists.
On 5 September 2002 the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety issued a press release claiming that she "gets tough on waiting lists". If her record in recent years is anything to go by, I would hate to see the results of a softly-softly approach to waiting lists, which appear to be totally out of control.
We are used to hearing the Minister make all manner of promises about healthcare — especially on the waiting lists crisis — and failing to deliver. Every quarter, before the publication of waiting list statistics, we hold our breath in anticipation of the ever-increasing numbers of patients on lists. Last March the Minister pledged to reduce the number of people waiting for hospital treatment to 48,000. That promise has never been fulfilled. Today more than 59,000 people are on the waiting list, which represents an increase of almost 9% since June 2001.
The Northern Health and Social Services Board has a massive waiting list; it is the highest outside Belfast. More than 9,000 people are queuing for the treatment that they deserve. Like many representatives, I am bombarded by queries from constituents and the families of patients about what is being done. It has become embarrassing to try to explain to them that I and other Members have voted more money than ever before to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I will vote even more money to it this year, yet it will make no impact whatsoever on the surgical needs of my constituents’ loved ones. It is embarrassing, because this place is getting the allocations wrong.
If the figures are staggering, consider how much more staggering they are in the light of the 28% increase in the excess waiting list, that is to say, the number of people waiting to get onto the priority list. Tens of thousands of people are waiting for urgent treatment — they are waiting and waiting and waiting. Given the track record of the Minister’s current policy, they will go on waiting.
Trends in waiting lists make an interesting source of study. In 1997 waiting lists decreased steadily. Since the Minister took over, they have risen consistently in every quarter except one. What concerns me most is that the Minister and her minions have no ambition to reduce the waiting lists. The press release of 5 September, which was issued together with the trends, states that her target is to "hold" the waiting lists at these unsatisfactory levels. By the words of her own press release the Minister is condemned.
This year’s waiting list is unacceptable, yet the Minister will tolerate it for another 12 months with the weak ambition to "hold" the figures at that level.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I thank the Member for giving way. Wards in certain hospitals are closing because of infections. I was asked to visit Belfast City Hospital, and on the exit stairs I counted around 500 cigarette butts and saw tin cans and all sorts of rubbish. The wards open onto those exit stairs, which are an absolute disgrace. How can hygiene be maintained in a hospital where such conditions exist?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Member for his observation; it shows that money is being targeted incorrectly.
The Minister has adopted the bureaucratic speak of "acceptable numbers" on waiting lists that are thoroughly unacceptable. I will discuss the trends later. The scandal of waiting lists is somehow robbed of humanity when we speak only about stark statistics. It is only when we meet constituents day to day and hear about their personal trauma that we realise just how harrowing and appalling the situation is.
I wish to mention two constituency cases. The first is a letter from Mrs W of Ballymoney, who wrote:
"I require breast surgery and went to see my GP in January 1998. I was referred to Coleraine Hospital on 1st February 1998 and seen by the specialist there on the 13th February.
I was seen again on 7th July 1999 and was told then that I would be put on the waiting list. The only contact I have had since then from the Ulster Hospital specialist has been a letter in January 2001 asking if I still want to be kept on the waiting list. On 20th June 2002 I was told that I was still on the waiting list."
That is an appalling example of what it means to be a statistic on a waiting list in my constituency. Yet it is being repeated, and I am sure that Members across the House, representing the four corners of Northern Ireland, would agree.
The second example is from a gentleman from Broughshane, who has written to the Minister’s office about his concerns. In his letter to me he states:
"Due to multiple injuries received in a road traffic accident on 4th July 2001, I was transported by ambulance to the casualty department of Antrim Area Hospital. After a cursory examination it was deemed my injuries were not of sufficient serious nature and I was discharged. It was only by persisting with a complaint that I had difficulty breathing that, after a long wait, x-rays were taken. These showed that I had a punctured lung with my broken ribs. A chest drain was inserted and I was admitted."
One of his injuries persists, and he has told me:
"On 8th August I was referred for an opinion from an orthopaedic specialist. My consultant reviewed me again in November 2001. Having waited expectantly for an appointment date, and believing that the NHS was reasonably efficient, I was growing increasingly impatient when I continued to receive nothing, even by way of recognition that I was on a waiting list.
I cannot express adequately how shocked and horrified I was to find that the orthopaedic specialist had not received either of my referrals from my consultant. How can it be possible that two referrals within a few months of each other can fail to reach their destination? What sort of crass, bureaucratic inefficiency does it take to lose, not one, but two referrals?"
Let us be clear about one thing; it is no longer a question of money — the resources are there. More of our Budget goes to health than at any time before. In the words of Brian Patterson, the British Medical Association Northern Ireland representative:
"It is not enough to just pour money into the NHS. It must be targeted to where it is most needed."
If the Minister were called Barbara Brown — and I ask Members to consider setting aside all of the political divisions in the House for a moment — and spoke with an English accent and was here on behalf of the Labour Party or Conservative Party as a direct rule Minister, people would not get near Stormont Castle without tripping over Sinn Féiners calling for her to go because of the way in which the system has been managed. We should draw back and look at the situation from that perspective. We would not let an English Minister run the Health Service in this way, or pump up the waiting lists. Why then are we allowing a person from Northern Ireland, a devolved Minister, to do it? We ought not to; we ought to reject her. The silence of some parties on the issue has been deafening.
The Minister’s policy is a disgrace; it has failed. She has turned a trend of decline in waiting lists in 1997 to a consistent increase. However, there is not a squeak from her party about her incompetence or that of her policy. The problems we face are a symptom of the political process. In any other Administration where a Minister had made such a significant mess of a portfolio they would, at best, be reshuffled elsewhere: the Cabinet or the Executive would see to it that such action was taken. This Executive lack the courage, and Sinn Féin the self-respect, to remove an incompetent Minister who has made a mess of a bad situation.
My party can, and will, be accused of many things, but at least our Ministers, all four of them to date, have been quality Ministers doing an efficient job. If they were not up to it, the party, let alone the nominating officer, would see to it that changes took place. Sinn Féin does not have the guts to change the Minister, even though she should have gone a long time ago.
If the Assembly continues with the Government’s health policy, the result will be a disaster. The Minister’s pledges and words count for little. Her glossy reports, of which there are dozens, do little but delay, procrastinate and confuse the public. I have those reports in front of me, and I will refer to them later. The House must demand that matters are put right or the Minster should be put out.
There are two amendments to the motion. I studied the Alliance Party’s amendment, and then I checked the statistics that have been provided. I believe that the Alliance Party’s amendment has been accommodated, because in the appendix to those statistics are the inpatient waiting lists by speciality. Perhaps they should be broadened, but that is for another day. I appeal to the Alliance Party to withdraw its amendment for that reason.
With regard to the amendment that stands in the name of Mr Hamilton and Mrs Courtney, I do not doubt their sincerity. However, that amendment just expands upon what I have already said. Let us keep the focus on a single issue. Let us distil it to the real point, which is that the Government’s policy has failed. Let us place the blame where it ought to be placed.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I beg to move amendment No 1: At the end add:
"and to ensure that future statistics include waiting times for various ailments."
Every member of society is appalled at the continuing increase in waiting lists for healthcare. All Members must express concern at that rise and emphasise that those statistics represent thousands of people who are suffering physically and psychologically. Waiting lists tell us little about the services that are delivered by the National Health Service, because they tell us little about the care that patients receive while they are on them.
Waiting lists can distort clinical priorities. Doctors have always considered them almost meaningless, as they almost place the same importance on minor surgery as on life-threatening illness. There is much more suffering for one person waiting for a cancer operation than there is for 10 people waiting for treatment for a dermatological or other less life-threatening ailment.
Waiting lists are meaningless to people. However, waiting times have a meaning, as people know how long they will have to wait for their needs to be met. They give patients a time and date to have in their sights, and they do away with uncertainty. Waiting times are a common-sense alternative, and they give the National Health Service a meaningful measure of its progress on improving the service delivered to patients. Waiting times are particularly crucial for more serious procedures such as heart and liver operations, cancer therapy, kidney transplants, brain surgery and so on, as they make the difference between life and death.
Last year the Scottish Executive announced that waiting times, rather than waiting lists, were to be the litmus test of progress in the Health Service. I cannot see why we should not do the same. That would show how much waiting time is due to major surgery on gravely ill patients being cancelled at the last minute for various reasons, causing great alarm to the patients and their relatives. All concerned must ensure that that extra burden on waiting lists is halted at once.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No 2: In line 2 delete all after "waiting lists" and insert:
"and, recognising the problems of bureaucracy, lack of resources, wastage of present resources and total lack of decision-making within the healthcare system, calls for the implementation of an effective and co-ordinated strategic plan between the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Health Boards and Trusts to help reduce the number of patients and length of time spent on these waiting lists."
I seek support for the amendment from all parties in the House. The reason for that is simple: I want to see real, effective action taken by the Minister. The Minister has told people repeatedly in Northern Ireland that she has put plans and measures in place to deal with the problem. However, this debate is evidence that her initiatives have, unfortunately, failed.
I congratulate Ian Paisley Jnr on tabling the motion. It is important that the House accept the amendment proposed by the SDLP and my party, because it will help to add more weight to the original motion and to expose the bureaucracy of the system. People want improvements on the ground. The amendment will help to make the Health Minister more accountable to the House and put more pressure on her to implement effective plans.
Two years ago, the Minister told us that her framework for action on waiting lists would help to solve the problems of recent years. It is obvious to everyone that her plans have not worked. It must be asked whether the Minister has the authority and vision to make a real difference to the problem of waiting lists. In a press release issued on 12 September 2000, the Minister said:
"Yesterday I issued a comprehensive framework for action. I am confident that the action flowing from that framework will immediately begin to address the problem, and will bring down waiting lists in the longer term."
Can the Minister be as confident now that the frameworks are having the impact that she intended? Is it not time that she admitted that her plans have been unsuccessful? Only yesterday, my Colleague Robert Coulter drew attention to delayed discharges and bed blocking in the Causeway Health Trust and to the link between bed blocking and waiting lists.
Through my membership of the Health Committee, I sincerely understand the Minister’s problems. It is because of those problems that the House has been patient for the past few years and has given the Minister time to tackle the issues. We were told that things would not improve overnight. I agree — no one expected them to. However, the Minister has had more than enough time to make a serious start on improving waiting list statistics.
It was important that the amendment contain a specific phrase on the relationship between the Department, health boards and trusts. There is a growing public perception that the Minister lacks the authority to put effective measures in place. According to reliable health professionals, there seems to be a disjointed and unco-ordinated approach to that problem within the health system.
The Minister often tells us how the Health Service has suffered from underfunding over the past few decades. I do not doubt that there is some merit in that argument, but, enough time and tolerance has been given to the Minister since she took up her post. It is about time that action was witnessed, so that people can see the benefits of a locally elected institution.
I was interested to read the recent comments of Dr Brian Patterson of the British Medical Association, who said that it was not enough to pour money into the National Health Service and that money needed to be targeted to where it was most needed, within the context of a coherent plan. That has been the argument of the Ulster Unionist Party. That is why it has proposed the introduction of an independent health auditor within the health system. Currently, auditors appointed by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety audit the accounts of health bodies in Northern Ireland.
We support the establishment of a robust independent audit of health services, with the Comptroller and Auditor General being appointed the auditor of all health bodies. That must be dealt with as part of the forthcoming audit and accountability legislation in order to best address the combined needs of Northern Ireland’s Health Service and local taxpayers. It is no good throwing taxpayers’ money into a massive black hole. We need to know that we are getting value for money and the maximum benefits possible. Money must be directed in the most effective way possible.
I hope that the House will accept the amendment and that the Minister will admit to the failure of the present framework for action on waiting lists. That is not simply my view, but that of health pressure groups, such as the British Medical Association. Real, effective measures and immediate action are needed, not more consultations.

Dr Joe Hendron: Mr Hamilton made a point about the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that issue has been raised with the Minister previously. As I understand it, the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland has responsibility for all Departments, with the exception of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I am not sure whether that historical arrangement has changed, but the Comptroller and Auditor General should have responsibility for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety just as he does for every other Department.
I welcome this opportunity to put the spotlight on the intractable problem of waiting lists. I acknowledge that this is a complex issue, for which there is no easy fix. I thank Mr Paisley for tabling the motion on this important issue and those who tabled the two amendments, which have encouraged serious and worthwhile debate.
The latest waiting list figures of almost 60,000 continue that depressingly familiar upward trend in quarterly statistics. The lists have gone up by an average rate of almost 10% since 1996. Our waiting lists are the highest per capita in the UK and are 60% higher than they are in England. Over 5,000 patients have been waiting for admission to hospital for longer than is acceptable under charter standards. Not surprisingly, those statistics play an important role in shaping a generally negative public perception of the Health Service in the Northern Ireland. There is an increasingly vocal public demand for those seemingly endless increases in waiting lists to be arrested as a matter of urgency.
We are frequently urged to look beyond the headline figures and consider the overall increase in the number of people being treated. Although some 7,000 more patients were treated in 2001 than in 1999, that will be cold comfort for the tens of thousands waiting anxiously for treatment, not knowing when they will receive it. It is completely unacceptable that patients with life-threatening illnesses sometimes have to wait years for treatments — that adds to their stress and increases the risk to their health. Regrettably, the wait will be too long for some. The many people who are waiting for cardiac bypass surgery can pay approximately £14,000 for private treatment. I do not oppose that — patients are entitled to opt for private treatment, if they can afford it.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the Member give way?

Dr Joe Hendron: I will give way shortly.
I object to a person having to use his or her life savings to pay for treatment. It is wrong that someone who may have only a few years left to live should have to pay that amount. Last week, in my capacity as a doctor, I dealt with someone in that situation.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member appreciate that, even with £14,000, it takes three months to have a bypass operation in the Royal Victoria Hospital? One must travel to Dublin.

Dr Joe Hendron: I understand that to be the case, although the wait would be no more than three months. Not everyone can afford that; something is wrong.
The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has for some time monitored the alarming increase in waiting lists and has frequently questioned senior officials about the obstacles to reducing them and the steps taken to increase capacity in the system. The Committee has written to the Minister on several occasions expressing serious disquiet at the escalating numbers who are waiting for hospital treatment. Like many others, the Committee has demanded to know what practical steps are being taken to tackle the problem. There is no doubt that historical Health Service underfunding in Northern Ireland has contributed directly to the crisis. For example, cuts in health resources in 1995-96 led to a 30% reduction in elective surgery that year. The waiting lists for elective procedures have been a major problem in Northern Ireland for several years. The Minister’s proposals in the recent document on elective surgery will be a positive step when they are implemented.
The problem has been compounded by a decrease of 18% in bed capacity over the past 10 years; however, inpatient surgery increased by 10% during that period. As a result, many hospitals are working to maximum capacity.
The Committee has the most profound respect for front-line doctors and nurses. We have visited every hospital in Northern Ireland and have seen how hard they and all other hospital staff work in accident and emergency departments and elsewhere. I pay tribute to their commitment, resilience and dedication, and I am sure that every Member would show them great respect and thank them.
The advent of devolution, however, provided a proper focus on health, which has been — deservedly — the Executive’s main priority ever since. That has meant a welcome injection of additional resources to reduce waiting lists.
The consensus was that extra funding was required to support an increase in service capacity to meet the demand for elective procedures. An additional £5 million was allocated for that purpose by the Minister in 2000 to support her three-year programme of action to tackle waiting lists. That sum was consolidated in 2001-02, together with an additional £3 million for new actions to deal further with the problem. Some £2 million has been set aside for waiting list initiatives this year, and that has been targeted at protected elective admissions.
Those significant funding increases led to a guarded optimism that tangible improvements would begin to flow from the initiatives in the Minister’s ‘Framework for Action on Waiting Lists’. I am sure that the Minister will speak positively; however, judging by the figures, the framework for action has signally failed. The Department’s priorities for action have consistently included targets for increased capacity, improved access to services and addressing staff shortages. The plan for 2001-02 included a plan to reduce waiting list figures to 48,000 by 2002. However, given the latest figures, the less challenging target of keeping the 2002-03 waiting lists at the level of 2001-02 may seem overambitious.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Hendron, I did not impose a time limit because of the number of Members who wish to speak, but I would be grateful if you would draw your remarks to a close.

Dr Joe Hendron: I shall indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome the recent appointment of the regional co-ordinator, Ms Jill Anderson, to provide a focus on waiting lists. She will provide a central steer to trusts’ senior managers, who were appointed to develop better management approaches in assessing activity.
The problem is complex. It is very much in the Minister’s interests to reduce the waiting lists, and she wants to do that. However, all the structures in Northern Ireland need urgent examination. More must be done to attract trained nurses and doctors into orthopaedics. One of the problems in orthopaedics is that there is not so much a need for surgeons as for appropriately trained theatre nurses. That is a key point.
I have spoken for long enough.

Mr Paul Berry: I commend my Colleague Ian Paisley Jnr for tabling such an important motion. Unfortunately, because the issue of waiting lists has been raised so often, we have run out of words to describe the deplorable situation that exists. The words "crisis", "meltdown" and "Third-World service" have been used before, and it is evident that, regardless of promises to deal with waiting lists, those lists get worse every day.
In ‘Framework for Action on Waiting Lists’ we read of commitment to reduce the numbers waiting. When the framework was published, a further £5 million was allocated in 2000-01 to deal with the problem. The usual press release trumpeted the great things that would be done. However, many of us would like to know how that money, and the other moneys that were given to deal with waiting lists, was spent. An audit should be carried out to determine where the money was siphoned off to and how much was really spent on tackling waiting lists.
The framework was a gigantic hoax. One of its great suggestions was that boards should describe the situation in their area and what they had done to alleviate it — which, regrettably, were facts that were already known. Further, they were to appoint a manager and submit quarterly returns to the Department. That is all tremendous stuff, but the end result has been that bureaucracy has increased year on year.
Many words such as "targets", "process" and "protocols" and grand phrases such as "strategic case mix planning" and "slot systems" have been used. There was an action plan, followed by board action plans, followed by trust action plans, followed by managers appointed by each board. There has been much activity and paperwork, but waiting lists have still increased. I find it deplorable that the situation is getting worse, but, most of all, our constituents, who are suffering as a result, find it deplorable and disgraceful.
I had discussions with representatives from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, and, although debates such as this are important, it is also important that we submit ideas to the Department. The phrase "winter pressures" seems to be fading from the collective consciousness as Ministers and managers realise that waiting lists and bed blocking are ever-present problems. Even in a good winter, bed blocking is one of the biggest burdens on the Health Service. However, with good management the situation can improve. For example, physiotherapists in other UK regions have been quick to establish their position as key players in the battles against waiting lists and delayed discharges. A growing number of highly experienced physiotherapists now work in the front line of healthcare. Many of them in England, Scotland and Wales are extended-scope practitioners. Their role includes assessing patients; making clinical diagnoses; referring patients to other healthcare professionals; and treating and discharging patients without their having to see a doctor.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is the Member aware that the acute bed blocking is caused, to a great degree, by the failure of the trusts to pay reasonable fees to nursing homes that could relieve the pressure at a fraction of the cost?

Mr Paul Berry: I agree wholeheartedly with Mr McCartney’s comments. The Health Committee raised that issue with the Minister. We asked her to provide temporary funding to enable nursing homes to care for elderly patients until they are fit to be discharged into the community.
Research has shown that more than 70% of patients referred to orthopaedic clinics do not need to see a consultant. In Sheffield, the introduction of an orthopaedic screening service, led by two physiotherapists working as extended-scope practitioners, has resulted in patients waiting an average of 32 working days for an initial appointment, compared to 11 months for a hospital appointment. The problem in Northern Ireland is that, although a national service agreement instructing trusts to make provision for extended-scope practitioner roles for physiotherapists was introduced in 1996, to date no trusts have fully implemented it. Like the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, I believe that developing more opportunities for physiotherapists to work as extended-scope practitioners would provide more timely care for patients, reduce waiting lists and enable the Health Service to work more effectively.
To develop those roles, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should firmly direct all trusts in Northern Ireland to implement fully and wholeheartedly the national service agreement on grading for the professions allied to medical practice.
In the Southern Board area, over £2 million has been wasted as a result of non-attendance at hospital appointments. The elderly, for example, may forget about their appointments. More than £10 million has been wasted in all the board areas in Northern Ireland in that way. A system must be implemented to remind people of their hospital appointments closer to the time so that such a situation can be avoided. The information system on appointments must be investigated so that the people get a better service. I support the motion.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I am aware of the needs of patients, staff, the elderly, children and the disabled. I am also aware of the community’s concerns about waiting lists as well as the strategy that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has implemented to tackle the problem. However, another member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is unaware of that strategy.
I accept that waiting lists are a concern for everybody and that they must be addressed as other Members have said. However, I cannot accept the amendment that has been tabled by two of my Committee Colleagues because it is disrespectful to those who work in the Health Service.
I assume that the accusation in the amendment that there is a
"total lack of decision-making within the healthcare system"
is a cheap jibe at the Minister. I am glad that she is here today and will be able to refute that accusation. I should also like to applaud the Minister for her commitment to tackling waiting lists. She has successfully gained funding to put 1,000 extra community care packages in place, which will undoubtedly free beds, and the last Member who spoke reminded us of the problem of bed blocking and how the elderly are kept in hospitals. That must be considered.
Incidences of elective surgery have increased, and the Committee was informed of that last week. That must also be applauded because, as the Chairperson said, we cannot tackle waiting lists in isolation without considering the Health Service as a whole.
I cannot support the amendment. Thousands of healthcare workers have decision-making responsibilities, and I object strongly to its wording on their behalf. People who work in the Health Service make decisions daily, whether they are doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff. They have increased the activity and efficiency of the Health Service over the past 10 years, despite serious underfunding. Statistics show that activity in hospitals has increased while funding has decreased. The accusation that there is a total lack of decision-making in the Health Service is objectionable and an insult to medical workers.
We must take a more serious approach that looks at what has led to the increase in waiting lists, and the Assembly must act as a whole to tackle them. The Chairperson rightly pointed out — and someone of his calibre who has had years of experience in the Health Service will know — that waiting lists cannot be considered in isolation, because they are a complex problem.
One Member said that while waiting lists remain a concern, we can see from the June figures a slight increase, mostly as a result of the new fertility services that were previously unavailable on the Health Service. I can see some Members screwing their faces up at that. The welcome introduction of fertility treatment has caused a slight increase in waiting lists.
Tom Hamilton spoke about developing a strategy to examine where the money goes in the Health Service. The needs and effectiveness study that pointed that up seems to have backfired on the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, as many people have stated that money cannot continually be thrown at the Health Service. The system must be overhauled. Bodies such as the National Health Service Confederation, the British Medical Association and the Health Committee have all stated that the Health Service is underfunded, and now the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has published a study that proves it.
Some Members spoke about staffing and the problem of cancelled appointments. At last week’s Health Committee I asked for the figures. Cancelled appointments and people not bothering to attend account for 25% of the total. There is also a shortage of staff, and it will take 10 or more years to fill the quota.
I accept that consultants work extremely hard; however, when annual leave is taken no one is trained to take their place. The acute services review ‘Developing Better Services’ calls for a single strategic regional authority with a workforce planning remit, which is the sort of change needed, and I commend the Minister on that. Boards and trusts must not take decisions outside their remit while not considering the hospitals or the acute sector as a whole.
Recently, the Health Committee was advised of the 100 additional beds to be provided for the Mater, Craigavon Area and Antrim Area Hospitals. I commend the Minister on that provision. Proposals are in place in the acute services review to reform management structures; the movers of the motion would do well to study them.
I thank Paul Berry for raising the matter of winter pressures, which place extra burdens on our hospital services. However, Ian Paisley Jnr should ask his Minister to grit the roads and footpaths properly this winter to ensure that the pressures on hospital services do not continue.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The statistics for waiting lists are stark. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s press release of 12 June 2001 stated that there was a hope that waiting lists would be down by 25% to 39,000. That figure rose six months later to 57,000, and, as the Committee Chairperson said, they stand now at over 60,000.
I have no difficulty with Mr McCarthy’s amendment, which calls for waiting times to be included in future statistics, but we already have accurate information on waiting times. I have been looking through the minutes of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, which detail its plan. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister that these figures are the returns from some months ago and that there may be improvements since these plans have been introduced.
Last week in my constituency I was told of an elective surgery admission that was cancelled four times over four months. The admission was an urgent referral for a large bowel investigation. The patient had to wait four months for a barium enema, which resulted in an unacceptable delay in the diagnosis of bowel cancer and a consequent delay in treatment. In the case of bowel cancer, any delay is very serious, as a life could be saved by prompt treatment. Only yesterday, I mentioned a horrific case, where a woman had been prepped four times for a bowel cancer operation. Between June and 23 August, the woman had been sent home to fast every Wednesday night in preparation for an operation the next day. She had still not had her operation by 23 August.
These cases are the tip of the iceberg. It is a terrible message to send out that, even in the case of cancer, which is a priority in the Health Service strategy, intensive care beds are not available. A consultant wrote to me saying that he had had to cancel his list of patients waiting for breast cancer operations. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board stated that it hopes to bring forward 180 patients for breast surgery operations with the extra money for waiting lists. This is a serious situation, which is traumatic for people on the waiting lists who have been diagnosed with cancer but do not know when their operations will be carried out. If an operation can be done promptly, a life may be saved. The longer cancer is left, the less likely it is that that life will be saved.
The Eastern Health and Social Services Board attempted to address the matter and to enhance its elective day-care work by reserving a number of beds that were used for emergency admissions for that surgery. I hope to hear that that strategy is working in the Mater Hospital and the Lagan Valley Hospital. The board then had to decide whether to opt for extra activity by the current consultants, for a locum surgeon to carry out more operations, or for additional permanent surgeons. I was taken aback to find that some of the consultants were demanding £500 for each extra operation. That serious matter should be addressed.
The Eastern Health and Social Services Board decided on different solutions for different hospitals. It is good to see that it has provided a permanent surgeon in the Belfast City Hospital, which seems to have the highest waiting list figures. There are 5,460 on the list, with an overflow list of 1,375. Those are huge figures, and I do not know what impact one surgeon might make on those. Nevertheless, it is an attempt to reduce the figures.
It is good to see that the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association’s (NICHSA) regional services improvement co-ordinator, Jillian Anderson, has developed the waiting list handbook and the common management protocols. The fact that different trusts are doing different things is problematic. We need to know what Jillian Anderson has recommended to date. The centrally co-ordinated waiting list and the common management protocols must be prioritised to enable the transfer of patients. It will be good to see whether these protocols are beginning to make a difference.
We have heard from the NICHSA’s chief executive, Andrew Dougal, on several occasions about the extensive waiting list for cardiac surgery. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board tells us that the figures for 2002-03 show that there are 268 people still on the list, despite the fact that 33 of those people were transferred outside Northern Ireland and that 44 of those 268 people have been waiting more than 12 months. Other Members have stressed that these extensive waiting lists mean that a long time passes between diagnosis and convalescence; we should set a target of no more than 12 months for that period.
The key is found in what I have said about management protocols, and most importantly, about co-ordination. This is not the first time that I have raised this matter in the House — it is probably the tenth time. The Member for North Down, Bob McCartney, mentioned community care. There is a demographical problem. The elderly are living longer, and nursing homes have closed, so we must find alternatives. I am told that 50 of the Causeway Hospital’s 250 beds are taken up by delayed discharges — that is a fifth of the hospital’s beds. Such figures clearly represent a crisis, and we must address that problem.
Between 65% and 80% of the 1,000 community care packages that the Minister released across all four health and social services boards went to the elderly.
The problem is clear: the elderly are in great need of these packages, but to distribute 1,000 of them was not enough. If the aim expressed today is to move patients out of hospital so that others can come in, and to increase intensive care capacity for those who require operations urgently, the number of community care packages must be increased.
I agree with Ms Ramsey’s comments about agreeing priorities in the Health Committee. It is with dismay that I note that politics are being played in respect of health issues, but I can understand that. Mr Berry and Iris Robinson were in a difficult position because they felt that they had to deviate from the wording of the Committee’s letter about increased funding, which referred to funding as "a priority" and not "the priority". The Assembly must give the clear message that funding is "the priority".

Mr Robert McCartney: Six months ago, I stated in the House that the waiting lists in Northern Ireland were not only the worst in the United Kingdom but the worst in Europe. Since then they have got even worse. Two points must be made about the Minister responsible. First, I agree with Ms Ramsey that health is under-resourced — there is no doubt about that; however, I do not agree that the Minister has made the best use of the available resources, or that she has administered them in the most competent and effective way.
We must look deeper at the cause of the present dilemma in the Health Service. The growth of waiting lists and the general lack of morale in the Health Service are the product of the form of Government endorsed by those who signed the Belfast Agreement. The underlying failure of the entire system is demonstrated. The pro-agreement parties, not just Sinn Féin — it was not the biggest party — but the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party, signed an agreement that made no provision for filling the black hole of capital underinvestment and the under-resourcing of aspects of life here.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
The core problem would exist regardless of whether the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety were from Sinn Féin, the SDLP or the Ulster Unionist Party. The difficulty is that not only was there a failure to negotiate sufficient resources but there was a failure in the institutions. The undemocratic d’Hondt system means that no Minister is really accountable to the Executive, the Health Committee, or even the Assembly. Ministers can be wholly incompetent or ineffective, but only the parties that appointed them can remove them — and that is unlikely in the present state of affairs. The pro-agreement parties were so anxious to get power that they sold out the basic interests of the population in Northern Ireland that is in need of healthcare, whether Unionist, Nationalist or of any other denomination.
The pro-agreement parties in the Executive, including the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, failed to pass on the extra cash that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave out over the past couple of years as a share of national increases in health spending. They preferred to spend it on their own priorities — more staff, more offices, more bureaucracy and more Departments like the "Department of the Centre", whose two Ministers have more than 400 staff and advisers.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not without blame, although there are some extenuating circumstances as regards resources. She has failed to administer her Department and to spend the available money efficiently. For example, there was the decision to close the Jubilee Maternity Hospital and the resultant massive overloading of the Royal Maternity Hospital, the failure to begin the promised new maternity hospital, and the perverse and ideological decision to scrap GP fundholding in favour of a centralised bureaucratic system that is still not properly in place and will probably never work. The GPs — respectable, dedicated doctors in the British Medical Association — are in revolt because the system is not working.
The Minister is also guilty of having a bizarre proclivity for launching inquiries at the drop of a hat, thereby wasting the precious administrative resources of her Department and the limited time she has as a Minister to make and implement decisions. Mr Berry has given Members a catalogue of committees and initiatives, all of which have produced absolutely nothing, except that the Minister’s eyes have been taken off the main object, which is the healthcare of the community.
The failure of the Health Minister is just one prominent example of the failure of pro-agreement parties to deliver the joined-up government they promised in the referendum. If it was not so sad, something could be made of the fact that all those folk who promised the people of Northern Ireland more efficient, accountable and effective government have failed to deliver it, and the system has failed to deliver it.
We can talk from time to time, whether it is about health, the environment, roads, sewerage or whatever, of the failure of the respective Minister to deliver, but we must look at the basic system. Unless we have principled, democratic, efficient, accountable government, we get 10 independent warlords without any collective responsibility.
Madam Deputy Speaker, every other Member has been given seven minutes to speak, and you are demonstrating impatience when I am not anywhere near that.

Ms Jane Morrice: The signs from the Chair were not impatience due to the time. I am aware that the Deputy Speaker has agreed that Members should speak for seven minutes, and I am prepared to go along with that. The subject of the motion is hospital waiting lists, and you were straying off the subject. That was why I was questioning you.

Mr Robert McCartney: With the greatest respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the basic system of government that produces these waiting lists, inefficiencies and difficulties is not relevant to the waiting lists, it is difficult to see what is. Of course, there are many Members in the House who cannot see the wood for the trees, and who cannot see that the things that are debated in a superficial way are the product of deep-seated constitutional failures to deliver effective government. That is the relevance.
I was going to say that I always find it amusing, if not tragic, to see that when one Minister is under the gun, every Member in the House attacks him or her. There is no question of collective responsibility. Today it happens to be the turn of the Health Minister. Let us blame the Health Minister for what she is culpable of, and remember that most of our problems are directly relevant to the system of government that the major parties that signed the agreement are responsible for.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. [Interruption.] Order, order. [Interruption.] Order. Given the number of Members who still wish to contribute to the debate, and the time that has been made available, I must ask Members to restrict their speeches to five minutes.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support Mr Paisley Jnr’s motion and wish to comment on waiting lists. Last week the press announced that they had been banned from entering the Ulster Hospital to ask patients and staff their opinions on the service that is being provided and to give an accurate portrait of what is really going on in the Health Service. Many people approached me and said that they thought that it was an absolute disgrace that the press were unable to ask patients and staff just what is going on so that they can get a fair idea of their problems. The hospital might have tried to withhold the information about long waiting times and people sitting on trolleys for more than eight hours at a time, but no one can hide that kind of dissatisfaction.
The statistics themselves speak volumes before one even begins to talk to those waiting for hip replacements or scans that could diagnose life-threatening conditions. It has been reported that some 140,000 people in the Province are "in the queue waiting to join the queue" for operations and treatment. People are waiting inordinate lengths of time to undergo relatively minor surgery that would have them operating on full power without the need for other forms of care. Patients such as those waiting for hip replacements are prime examples of that scenario. They usually need care packages while waiting for their surgery, but, on the whole, they would recover fully and be active and mobile members of the community were they to receive the surgery that they needed when they needed it. That would also save the system money.
The Health Service is full of people who need surgery, only to have it postponed. Therefore there is congestion, with people suffering pain and distress because they have been waiting so long. That drains resources from other parts of the NHS, such as community care and general practitioners. The waiting list system is a vicious circle, which the Minister and her Department must address. In last week’s papers, it was incredible to see the plethora of advertisements selling insurance, private health policies and operations at private clinics on the basis that the Health Service is so bad that it is failing to do its job. One of the captions read, "Worried about NHS waiting times? Phone this number".
I should not say that the country is worried about NHS waiting times. However, waiting times are becoming extremely frightening for those on the waiting lists, especially the elderly, who are now parting with their life savings to rid themselves of the very pain and suffering that they expect the Health Service to try to alleviate. What sort of society do we live in if the elderly have to wait to part with hard-earned cash so that they need not be burdened by pain and suffering at their time of life, when they should be using their savings to enjoy their retirement and to pursue activities that they could not when they were working? The elderly, and everyone else in this country, have to be told that the Minister and her Department will do something other than simply offer platitudes about how seriously they regard the situation or, at the end of this debate, sum up by saying that they agree with what has been said.
What is to happen? Is it not about time that the Minister stopped blaming the Conservative Government for what they did to the Health Service and showed us what she will do about the situation? The problem has reached somewhere beyond crisis point. Around 10% of the population are waiting to see a doctor, never mind have an operation or take their treatment further. The situation is indefensible, and something must be done about it, not in the next financial year but now, when thousands more have joined that same queue waiting for operations.
Several hospitals around the Province were closed down around five or six years ago so that the pooling of resources would benefit the country. The direct result, especially in the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald, was a bigger workload and not enough staff or hospital beds to cope with the larger catchment area that was created by closures elsewhere. Those same hospital buildings, which only five years ago had seen patients getting treatment and the proper level of care that they deserve, are for the most part lying empty.
Another reason that lists are so long is that patients are being sent home early to free beds and reduce the lists, only for them to return with complications that take longer to cure. As a result, they require more time in a hospital bed than the original surgery would have resulted in had the patient been allowed the appropriate post-operative rest time to begin with.
There is no doubt that we have the worst waiting lists in Europe. We are certainly outstripping other areas of the United Kingdom. The breach of charter standards has been going on for a long time, with many patients waiting more than two years for hip replacements when the maximum should be 12 months. Can we imagine how many people are living in pain daily? We see figures on a page that tell us that there is a two-year waiting list for hip replacements, or a year or two for cardiac or orthopaedic surgery.
I urge Members to support the motion, which my Colleague, Ian Paisley Jnr, tabled. It is opportune and applicable, and people wish to see the waiting lists reduced now.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak about the consistently high waiting lists, which are causing concern to many people throughout Northern Ireland. Our health system is cursed with the worst waiting lists in the United Kingdom and Europe. Given the size of the population, we are now the poor man of Europe as far as health provision is concerned.
The most recent statistics show that waiting lists continue to grow at an alarming rate. The rise in the number of people waiting for hospital treatment, whether inpatient or outpatient, started in 1999, around the time that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety took office. In a recent press statement, the Minister said that hospital trusts were being put on notice to deliver on waiting list targets. Surely she should take responsibility for this disgraceful situation that she has presided over as Minister.
Every Member knows of the long-standing effects of gross underinvestment in the Health Service during direct rule. The Health Service has been under the leadership of the Minister for three years now, but the situation has far from improved; indeed, it has spiralled out of control. What is the Minister going to do to reduce the number of patients on long waiting lists? How is she going to reduce the bureaucracy in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Her past decisions have done nothing to alleviate wastage and reduce waiting lists.
The number of people waiting for inpatient services grew by nearly 9% in the past year alone. The number of people waiting for more than the recommended time increased by 22% in the past 12 months. The number of people with serious health conditions waiting for treatment increased by one fifth in one year. One of my constituents, who was due to have an operation for a cancer-related illness, was told a few days beforehand that it had been postponed. I had to intervene to have the appointment reinstated. The general public is disillusioned with the health system here. Over the past years, many have seen hospital services decline, not improve.
Last year the Minister made a pledge to reduce waiting lists to 48,000, and she was given an extra £224 million to help her to keep that promise, which has since been broken. The waiting list now stands at a disgraceful 59,000. It is not only inpatient waiting lists that have increased. Outpatient figures have soared to over 140,000 persons, which is another shameful statistic. Each statistic represents an individual suffering, often facing anxiety and unable to get on with his life because he has to wait for an operation.
The waiting list crisis is summed up by the recent comments of the vice-chairman of the British Medical Association’s Northern Ireland council. Dr Brian Patterson said that doctors were
"impeded by bureaucracy, lack of resources and a total lack of decision-making within the healthcare system".
As elected representatives, we cannot afford to ignore the views of the representative bodies of doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The Minister has shown a marked lack of leadership on the issue of waiting lists. No amount of consultation documents can take the place of firm decision-making. The crisis is such, as illustrated by the highest waiting lists in Europe, that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should abdicate from her position, as she has failed in her duties.
The Minister told us in March that there would be a reduction in waiting lists, which has not happened. The public have grown tired of broken promises and failed initiatives. We need more beds, more doctors and more nurses in our hospitals.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Billy Armstrong: There must be a way of monitoring how taxpayers’ money is spent and there must be a measure of accountability in the health system. The people of Northern Ireland should not be made to wait any longer.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Members have heard much about waiting lists, not only today but over several weeks. It is worth looking back. On 13 March 2002, the Department told the Health Committee that
"Waiting lists for elective procedures have been a problem in Northern Ireland for a number of years. Cuts in resources for health in 1995/96 led to a 30% reduction in elective procedures that year. There has been a subsequent downward spiral, in spite of substantial non-recurring funds directed into elective surgery."
That was in 1995.
"Over the last 10 years bed capacity has decreased by 18%, while inpatient surgery has increased by 10%; 2001 saw a 9% increase in general medical emergencies, which had a knock-on effect on non-urgent electives."
The report goes on — statistic after statistic. Members could argue all afternoon about statistics.
I listened to Bob McCartney — I see he has left the Chamber — and for the first time he acknowledged that the responsibility for the waiting lists was not all down to the Health Minister. Sinn Féin been saying that since the Minister was appointed. For some Members, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not a health issue, but a political issue. They manifestly continue to treat health as a political football, and not as something that affects their constituents. They use it as a political weapon against the Health Minister because she is a Shinner — a member of Sinn Féin. That is the basis of their attack on the Health Department, just as it was on Martin McGuinness’s Department. That is the fundamental reason why some Members are being destructive, rather than constructive, in relation to health and education.
It is interesting to note the factors about waiting lists. According to the Office of Health Economics:
"Consultants working in both the public and private sectors have a vested interest in maintaining lists to ensure that some patients will choose to be treated privately."
There are vested interests in the medical profession at GP level. The British Medical Association has been mentioned by several Members as the sounding board or benchmark against which a good or bad Health Service can be judged. I ask the British Medical Association and Brian Patterson what constructive input they have made towards reducing waiting lists. What co-operation have they given to the Department to reduce waiting lists? It goes back to the vested interest and to the impact of vested interests on the Health Service.
Since health is being treated as a political football, Members are entitled to ask what influence those who made it so have used on their friends in the trusts and boards to block the system, cause difficulties and use the same kind of politics that they use in the Assembly. The Minister cannot be accused of being solely responsible for the regrettable state of the waiting lists. All Members regret it.
No one can say that the Minister is clapping her hands because there are waiting lists. Are Members suggesting that she encourages waiting lists and is not taking sufficient action to reduce them? Did the Minister not appoint Jill Anderson — whom no one could accuse of being a Shinner — to attempt to reduce waiting lists? That was a positive action by the Department and the Minister to address the waiting lists in a serious, coherent and cogent way.
Unfortunately, Bob McCartney blamed the Good Friday Agreement for the failure of the Health Service. However, the failure is in the reluctance of a major section of the Assembly to accept Sinn Féin Ministers, and their continual attempts to reduce their effectiveness by back-door tactics and by making areas such as health into political footballs rather than something for the good of the community.

Mr Sam Foster: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue, which must be one of the Assembly’s priorities. I support the amendment tabled by my Colleague Tom Hamilton and the SDLP’s Annie Courtney. Although it would be incorrect to say that all is well in the Western Health and Social Services Board, where I live, I must acknowledge the board’s recent initiatives to try to reduce the waiting lists. The board has the lowest percentage of ill people on waiting lists in Northern Ireland, and the new day care unit in the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen has contributed to that reduction. Such a move makes the Erne Hospital a valuable asset in the Fermanagh area, and its services to the community could never be dispensed with.
I concur with many Members’ comments that this issue is one of the Minister’s main priorities and, therefore, that one would expect to see an improvement. However, instead of progress, the waiting lists now have approximately 60,000 people on them. It is easy to quote numbers and statistics, but we must remember that each figure represents one patient. Sometimes we lose sight of that. Each of those patients is suffering unnecessarily because of inefficiency and disorganisation in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is worrying to note that we have the longest waiting lists in the United Kingdom, and, more worryingly, in Europe.
The Minister has said that this is one of her main priorities. Two years ago, she established the ‘Framework for Action on Waiting Lists’. Although that led to improvements in other services — 200 people had cardiac surgery outside Northern Ireland in the past year — the Minister’s plan failed to address the underlying problem of longer waiting lists. Will she now have the honesty to admit the failure of that policy? More importantly, will she set in place a coherent, strategic, effective plan that will make a real difference to people’s lives?
An overwhelming majority of people believe that the present structure of the Health Service only complicates matters. There is an overburdened bureaucratic structure instead of an effective decision-making process that is accountable. There are great expectations and greater demands on the health services, but there are also too many areas of administration to contend with. That becomes time-consuming and blocks progress to get a job completed. I acknowledge that this is a complex problem, but enough time has passed for us to see some improvement in the statistics.
An additional £5 million was allocated in 2000, and £2 million was allocated for waiting list initiatives this year. I totally support the call by the Ulster Unionist Party’s health representatives for an independent health auditor. It is possible that the health system is under-resourced, but not as much as some people, including the Minister, would like to make out. Too much taxpayers’ money is being wasted, and we need an autonomous body to help to regulate the money that is channelled into health. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sam Foster: No, I do not have the time. People are weary of hearing excuses for hospital waiting lists not being reduced. The Minister has been in office long enough to implement effective policies. We do not need more PR spin; we need action so that people can see improvements. Good health is vital, and society demands it now.
With reference to John Kelly’s remarks, does he accept that many of the problems in the Health Service are a residue of the terrible injuries inflicted on people over 30 years of trouble and strife?

Ms Jane Morrice: I call Mr Hussey, and I ask him to restrict his speech to four minutes.

Mr Derek Hussey: I congratulate Mr Paisley Jnr on tabling the motion, but he will understand that I am supporting the amendment. I am struck by the similarity of this motion and that proposed by Mr McGrady on 18 September 2001, which stated:
"that this Assembly views with concern the ever-increasing waiting lists for medical and hospital treatment in our local health services, and requires immediate action to remedy this unacceptable and growing problem."
We must ask what action has been taken in the past year, and whether the unacceptable and growing problem has been remedied. The answer to the second part of that question must be an emphatic "No". I await the Minister’s answer to the first part. As a layman, I cannot see what action has been taken by the Department to stop the growth of hospital waiting lists and cut them back.
In December 1999 there were nearly 46,500 people on the waiting list in Northern Ireland. That figure has risen to just under 60,000 in 2002. It is true that the total number of people waiting at any given time does not tell the whole story, as Mr Shannon said. The length of time spent on the waiting list is probably more important. The situation in that respect is extremely bleak.
We do not need a repeat of the 2001 motion. We must concentrate on action to improve the services. That is why I support the amendment.
Nearly 9,000 people in Northern Ireland are categorised as excess waiters, defined as those who have been waiting more than 12 months for cardiac treatment or more than 18 months for other specialities. The National Health Service Patient’s Charter is being routinely breached in this part of the United Kingdom.
Behind the statistics and jargon lies human pain and suffering. I have a big, strong friend at home who is suffering from a hernia. He is being gradually incapacitated by that medical condition, which is not being dealt with by the Health Service.
The problem is not only the number of people on the waiting list, but also the length of time that they must wait. The situation is exacerbated by the ageing population; staff shortages; lack of trained doctors and nurses; fewer hospital beds; delayed discharges caused by the lack of available community care packages; and, in some cases, growing disillusionment among those who are under so much pressure in the Health Service.
The picture that other Members have painted is bleak. I await with interest the Minister’s description of her Department’s strategy for reducing waiting lists and times. I assume that there is one.
I note that her expectations have been radically downsized. At one time she promised large reductions in the waiting lists. However, her Department’s press release of 5 September 2002 states:
"Our target this year is to hold waiting lists at their present levels".
I do not want the buck to be passed. In previous debates the Minister has blamed the Tories, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Barnett formula, the Brits in general and other Members of the Executive Committee, especially the Finance Minister. Her latest press release points the finger at the chief executives of the health trusts.
Given the priority that health has been given in budgetary allocations, and the extra money that has been put into the Department in recent years, the buck must stop with the Minister. I note that her attire today is sombre, in contrast to the colourful dress she wore yesterday. She still stands indicted at the scaffold. The onus is on her to account to the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland for the crisis in the Health Service —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Derek Hussey: — represented by the waiting list she presides over.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá mé buíoch de na Comhaltaí ar fad a labhair sa díospóireacht inniu. Dhírigh an díospóireacht ar cheist ar cúis mhór imní í do go leor daoine. D’éist mé go fíorchúramach leis na pointí agus chuir mé an-suim iontu. Tiocfaidh mé ar ais chucu i gceann tamaill.
Aontaím nach féidir glacadh leis go mbeadh ar dhaoine breoite fanacht ar feadh tréimhsí fada le cóireáil. Aontaím go bhfuil tuilleadh infheistíochta de dhíth inár n-ospidéil. Aontaím go gcaithfimid a chinntiú go bhfaighimid an luach is fearr ar ár n-airgead ó na hacmhainní a chuirtear isteach sna seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta.
Tharraing Comhaltaí aird fosta ar chúrsaí taobh amuigh dár n-ospidéil. Ní lú sin de chúis imní domh. Tá go leor daoine ag fanacht sa bhaile leis an tacaíocht atá de dhíth orthu lena neamhspleáchas agus cáilíocht a saoil a choinneáil. Is daoine scothaosta go leor acu seo. Mura bhfaighidh siad cúnamh pras oiriúnach beidh ar chuid acu dul isteach san ospidéal. Beidh moill ann ag cur daoine ar ais chun an phobail mura mbíonn na seirbhísí ann le tacaíocht a thabhairt dóibh.
I am grateful to the many Members who contributed to the debate, which focuses on an issue that is of deep concern to many people in our community. I have listened carefully, and with great interest, to the points that have been made, and I will address them.
I agree that it is unacceptable for sick people to have to wait long periods for treatment. I agree that our hospitals need more investment and that we must ensure that we get the best value for money from the resources being put into health and social services.
Members have also drawn attention to the situation beyond our hospitals, and that is of equal concern to me. Large numbers of people — many of whom are elderly — are waiting at home for the support they need to maintain their independence and quality of life. Without prompt and appropriate assistance some will end up in hospital, and there will be a delay in returning people to the community after hospital care because services may not be in place to support them.
We must view health and social services as a continuum of care. We cannot think in terms of one sector’s pre-eminence. All four sectors — acute, community, primary care and public health — have to work together, and a shortcoming in one becomes a drag on the others.
Waiting lists must be viewed in context. Over the past five years, hospital activity has increased by 10%. During the same period there has been a 27% increase in the number of community care packages. That pressure might have been manageable in a service that had the investment it needed. However, since the early 1980s, the equivalent of £190 million — in today’s terms — was taken out of health and personal social service’s baseline budget. It was only this year that significant additional resources became available for reinvestment.
It is a fact that I inherited a service in which the number of hospital beds had been drastically reduced to the point where we have too few beds to cope with demand. Many hospitals are working at over 90% occupancy, and that is not tenable in the long term.
As Paul Berry said, our community services are also underfunded, leading to inappropriate admissions to hospital and delayed discharges. I am addressing those issues urgently together with my Colleagues in the Executive. However, as I have said, we started with a very low baseline, and it will take some time to put things right.
Demand for hospital services is increasing all the time. The number of GP referrals increased by over 4% between 1997-98 and 2001-02. One factor is, undoubtedly, our ageing population; another is the rapid advances in medicine, which offer new therapies for previously untreatable conditions. More people are being referred for treatment than ever before. However, there is no single cause for the increase in referrals.
One of my first actions as Minister was to set out a long-term plan for dealing with waiting lists. The issue has been one of my key priorities ever since. The plan, which involved getting the extra resources that I needed so that hospital and community capacity could be built up, improving the management of the system and putting best practice into effect, is the only way that the problem will be overcome. Currently, that plan is being implemented.
To address the issue of capacity, I have already announced plans for significant expansion in hospital capacity at the Mater, Antrim and Craigavon hospitals — over 100 extra beds. I have also announced plans for a new day procedure unit for the Erne Hospital and for new theatres at Musgrave Park. When those new developments come on-stream, they will be a major factor in getting more people treated more quickly. The number of renal dialysis stations will also be increased this year to meet growing demand.
The units at the Mater Hospital, for example, will involve the creation of a 14-bed elective unit, which is estimated to deliver some 1,500 cases a year. The Lagan Valley Hospital proposal will deliver about 600 cases a year, initially targeting patients seeking routine elective surgery in general and vascular surgery. Alongside those schemes, significant investment is also going into equipment that will have a direct impact on the length of time that patients have to wait. For example, the new linear accelerators going into Belvoir Park Hospital will increase throughput and reduce waiting times. New diagnostic imaging equipment at Musgrave Park Hospital will boost the regional orthopaedic service.
Alongside that expansion of hospital capacity, it is important to improve the way that existing capacity is used. At present, a significant programme of work is under way to tackle that. In April, I appointed a regional service improvement leader to drive the waiting list agenda and to ensure improved access to services. That individual has a great deal of experience in that area of work within the National Health Service, and she is already making a difference.
Improvements are being made in the way that waiting lists are managed. I have made it clear that I expect the service to deliver on waiting lists. For example, at the end of September, chief executives of boards and trusts are being brought together to examine the key initiatives on validation and waiting list management. Staff have been appointed to support, lead and contribute to all aspects of local action on patient access improvement initiatives. Plans are in place for trusts to allocate staff to make the management of waiting lists in hospitals more efficient.
It is important that the service be encouraged to learn from what works well elsewhere. To that end, I have asked boards and trusts to develop several protected elective facilities. Those facilities will not be affected by day-to-day pressures on the service, which will mean that more people will get their treatment on time instead of — as often happens at present — operations having to be postponed because of the pressure caused by emergency admissions. Plans for those facilities are now at an advanced stage, and their effect will be seen in the months and years to come. That is a prime example of people here already making a difference and showing that the things that they have put in place make a difference. Other trusts throughout the North are taking those lessons on board and are driving forward similar plans in their areas.
Members have referred to the recent statistics for the June quarter, on which the debate is based. I want to make several important points about those figures. First, it is worth pointing out that the increase in the number of patients waiting for inpatient treatment was the lowest quarterly increase since 1998, despite the fact that compared with the same quarter in 2001, the service treated over 1,000 more patients. Secondly, the increase was accounted for mostly by the gynaecology speciality. It contributed almost 75% of the overall inpatient increase, primarily because patients waiting for in vitro fertilisation treatment were included on the inpatient waiting list for the first time. Thirdly, the great majority of patients are still being treated promptly throughout the service. No less than 74% of inpatients treated between April and June this year had been waiting for less than three months. Of inpatients admitted for treatment during the June quarter, 94·8% had been waiting for less than 12 months.
The present position needs to be seen against that background. I have made the point before, in the Assembly and elsewhere, that there are no instant solutions to the problem. What is needed is increased investment, more hospital capacity, more capacity in community services, extra specialist and nursing staff, and more effective and efficient management of the service.
There is strong evidence of progress in that area, but it takes time for the initiatives to build.
It is also important to restate that hospital waiting lists cannot be viewed in isolation. Primary and community care services have a significant role to play in keeping those people out of hospital who do not need to be there and in getting patients discharged as early as possible.
I welcome Paul Berry’s appreciation of the need to invest in a wide range of services in the community as well as in acute hospitals in order to address waiting lists. Such developments will cost money, and I look forward to Members throughout the Chamber supporting me in addressing the financing of services in forthcoming debates on funding.
Tom Hamilton suggested that there was an unco-ordinated approach to waiting lists. That is simply not the case. All boards are working to a common approach, and trusts are working to the template that I set out in the framework for action.
Monica McWilliams mentioned consultants asking for more money for extra sessions. I have made it clear to boards that I expect the new protected elective facilities to be provided on a normal contractual basis, and staff are now being recruited. In advance of the new arrangements, there have been some discussions with clinicians about temporary initiatives. In some cases, staff may have to work through their holidays. I expect boards to consider carefully any proposals to ensure that all costs can be justified, taking appropriate account of agreed rates for such activity.
Sue Ramsey and others mentioned people not attending appointments and who are designated as "DNA" (do not attend). The outpatient rate for non-attendance is 13%. The inpatient rates are suspected to be much lower, but there is no firm evidence of that. All boards are very aware of the problem of people not keeping appointments. Measures are being considered to ensure that reminders are issued and that checks are made that people still need appointments. The possibility of rerunning a publicity campaign is also being considered.
Monica McWilliams quoted the Eastern Health and Social Services Board minutes concerning people waiting more than 12 months for cardiac surgery. The minutes state that, of 52 people waiting more than 12 months in March 2002, 42 had refused an offer of treatment elsewhere, eight had had treatment but were not yet off the list and two had received a date for future treatment elsewhere. However, I accept that people on waiting lists will not always choose to be treated elsewhere.
Ms McWilliams said that the 1,000 community care packages will not be sufficient. I assure her that there is a bid for future rises in funding to increase the number of people who we want to help in community settings.
I agree with Joe Hendron’s point that waiting times, rather than overall numbers, are important. Indeed, one of the key issues that Jillian Anderson is addressing is the more effective management of waiting lists. I expect that her work will lead to reductions in waiting times. The management of waiting lists, which was mentioned, will be a key performance management objective for the service this year.
Billy Armstrong mentioned the ownership of waiting lists. I have developed an approach that has three components: targeting waiting list money for specific activity; a co-ordinated initiative to review and tighten the management of waiting lists in each trust; and, in collaboration with the Executive, putting additional resources into increasing capacity in community services and several key hospitals.
I, of course, am working to target waiting list money in collaboration with my Executive Colleagues. I look to the service to deliver on the co-ordinated initiative to review and tighten the management of waiting lists. I am working closely with the boards and trusts to ensure that each component is well targeted and closely monitored.
I recognise Members’ desire to reduce waiting lists. I too want shorter waiting times for procedures and treatment that will improve people’s lives. I am very much aware of the effect that waiting times have on the individual waiting for treatment. Two years ago, when I issued the ‘Framework for Action on Waiting Lists’, I said that only management action focused on the long term, coupled with new investment in the service, would improve the waiting lists. That remains my position. It is disingenuous not to recognise that a plan, a policy and a clearly thought out approach exist. Waiting lists are a key priority for me and my Department. I have already taken significant action to build a solid foundation to tackle the waiting list problem. I have secured additional resources for the service this year, although that investment can be only a beginning; much more will be needed to build the necessary capacity for a modern service. I look to Members, especially those who have taken part in the debate, to support the endeavour to get the necessary resources.
I have set in motion a long-term programme of work to ensure that health and social services make the best use of the resources allocated and to strive to improve performance in the key areas that make a difference. We must recognise — as Members have today — that until we get resourcing of health and social services right over a sustained period, the improvements that the public want, and which I have been working to achieve, will simply not be deliverable.
A foundation has been laid, but it cannot bring results overnight. However, we are making a difference. Our approach, which I have again explained in detail today, can, and will, bring dividends and ensure that we tackle the problem and that we deal with its effect on those who want easy access to health and social services.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment moved by Mr Tom Hamilton. I also congratulate Mr Paisley on bringing this timely debate to the House. Neither Mr Hamilton nor I wish to dilute the debate. We hope that Mr Paisley will accept our amendment, the purpose of which was to strengthen and put in place resources and strategies to make the Department more effective and more accountable to the Assembly.
I worked in the Health Service for more than 20 years. Sue Ramsey, a member of the Health Committee, claims that the amendment contains a cheap jibe at the Minister and that people are trying to get at her. The only people who have made a political football of this debate are Sue Ramsey and her Colleague. It is disgraceful that she has accused Tom Hamilton and me of wording the amendment in such a way as to cause offence to staff. Her remark should be withdrawn.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Annie Courtney: No, not at the moment.
I worked in the Health Service for over 20 years; I was a theatre sister for most of that time. I stood at the operating table night after night, not because of waiting lists, but because of the bombings, shootings and killings on the street. The following day health workers had to suffer the indignity of listening to people who supported such actions. Night after night, we came out to help voluntarily and then went to work the next day. We received no extra money for it, for there was none. I strongly resent the attitude of the two Sinn Féin Members to our amendment, and I hope that the House shares that view.
Mr John Kelly asked what GPs are doing. The GPs at the coalface have suffered throughout. They are the people who have had to try to get patients into hospital. Dr Brian Patterson pointed out that any waiting list meant that someone was waiting for surgery.
There is evidence that the Executive and the Assembly are committed to the Health Service, but we do need to know how the extra £687 million — almost a third of the Executive budget — was spent. We have a responsibility to ensure good management and accountability for the use of resources. Some trusts were able to manage their budgets, while others were allowed to run up large deficits — perhaps to the detriment of their colleagues. They were given an extra £18 million by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. How was that money spent, and what was the origin of the deficits? The Minister must address those issues and respond.
Also, we must see the progress of the Executive. The Department produced. ‘Framework for Action on Waiting Lists’ in Autumn 2000. We have not yet seen that report.
I warmly welcome the appointment of the regional co-ordinator, who will focus specifically on waiting lists and times. The Committee for Health wants to assess the effectiveness of the resources used in tackling waiting lists and to see precisely where the money has been spent. I agree with Mr Hamilton that an audit trail is necessary. It is almost impossible to obtain answers. The money goes into the Health Service, and no one is too sure where it comes out. For that reason, we need answers and an audit trail. Thus, I hope that the mover of the motion will accept our amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not meant to dilute what he said. I welcome his comments and all the constructive comments that have been made today.
It is also necessary to find extra skills and training to assist staff. As I said earlier, I worked for so long in the Health Service that I resent some of the remarks made today. Yes, it is possible that in the past there was wastage in the Health Service. It is also possible that the Health Service was taken for granted.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member draw her remarks to a close.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Madam Deputy Speaker, I understood that we had seven minutes to wind up.

Ms Jane Morrice: It is my understanding that the Deputy Speaker made it clear that the mover of each amendment would have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up. Those were the instructions. I shall give the Member leave to finish her last line.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I also welcome the commitment of the Minister to address the issues in an effective and coherent manner. With regard to amendment No 1, we find that it is too vague to be of any assistance in tackling waiting lists. It will impose extra bureaucracy on the Department and trusts.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order that if a Member is named in a contribution to debate, that Member has the right to reply? The Member refused to give way.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The naming of a Member, as the Member is well aware, happens often on the Floor of this Chamber. Certainly, it is absolutely the choice of the Member who is on his or her feet whether to give way.

Mr David Ford: I welcome this debate, and I support amendment No 1, which strengthens the original motion put down by Mr Paisley Jnr. We support that motion from the Benches, although we do not necessarily support all of the words used by the mover.
I also welcome the Minister’s recognition of the continuum of care, which extends from primary care to community care, and of which acute services are only a part. I assure the Minister that, like Paul Berry, I will, wearing my retired social worker’s hat, continue to remind her of those facts.
The point of our amendment, which was dismissed so fleetingly by Mrs Courtney, is to focus the Assembly’s attention on the relevant statistics. The number of people on waiting lists is irrelevant; the issue is how quickly they receive treatment. That is why the Scottish Executive have adopted the concept of waiting times rather than waiting numbers as the basis on which statistics in Scotland are compiled, which is a more meaningful way of expressing concerns.
Individuals do not care whether there are 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 people on a waiting list. They want to know how quickly people are treated. In particular, a statistic that includes various specialities and varying degrees of seriousness of ailments is meaningless. Serious, worrying, life-threatening illnesses are mixed with many other matters. The Minister should give urgent attention to determining a better way of presenting statistics.
At the moment, rather than concentrating on life-threatening illnesses that are of greater concern to the community, the statistics provide consultants with a perverse incentive to treat minor ailments that can be dealt with quickly and cheaply, thus removing one person from the waiting list. That is why we sought to strengthen the motion by referring to "waiting times", not "waiting numbers". I trust that if the proposer of the motion cannot accept amendment No 2, he can at least accept amendment No 1.
Although the Minister was unhappy with all criticism of her Department, which is her right, Mr Paisley Jnr’s motion is a moderate, reasoned and sensible method of addressing the issue, just as one would expect from him at times such as these. It is a pity, however, that the words that he used when proposing the motion were anything but moderate, sensible and reasoned.
I am concerned by amendment No 2, which seems to propose merely to tack on at the beginning of the motion a "let’s bung in all we can to make it sound nasty" few words. For anyone who is taking the issue seriously to suggest that there is a total lack of decision-making, when we have heard that people have been appointed to deal with the matter, is rather over the top, and for two Back-Benchers from the parties of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel to propose an amendment that refers to the lack of resources, which is a problem for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as opposed to the Executive, is a slightly thin argument. Members on these Benches, therefore, have no intention of supporting amendment No 2, which merely adds political diatribe without recognising the problems that we face.
Mr Hussey said that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety previously blamed the Chancellor, the Barnett formula, the British Government and the Brits in general. Fundamentally, many causes exist, and it is illogical for Ulster Unionist and SDLP Members to pretend that it is the fault of the Minister alone.
The Minister must accept her responsibility, and her Executive Colleagues, who are also concerned with the allocation of resources, should accept their responsibilities as well. That is why the motion, with the addition of amendment No 1 to make the statistics more meaningful, puts realistic pressure on the Executive, whereas amendment No 2 would detract from that entirely.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Whatever David Ford is on, he should perhaps find a dark corner, lie down, keep taking the tablets and, it is to be hoped, it will all be over by the morning. If there is a doctor in the House, perhaps he could help him with his problems. I notice that Dr Hendron is not volunteering his services. The manner in which Mr Ford supported my motion was rather dubious but, if he keeps taking the tablets, it should all be over soon.
Mr Hamilton said that he supported the Comptroller and Auditor General’s view on what he should do. It is disappointing that that is not mentioned in the amendment; if it were, the Assembly could have supported it collectively.
However, I am drawn by the comments of Mrs Courtney and Dr Hendron. Dr Hendron is correct to say that the framework for waiting lists has failed. That has failed along with the other glossy reports that the Minister has published: ‘Building the Way Forward to Primary Care: A Consultation Paper’ — that has failed; the report of the acute hospitals review group, on which we have had incomplete answers, has failed; ‘Investing in Health’ has also failed; and ‘Developing Better Services’ has failed. In fact, the Minister has all the reports but none of the answers. That was proved in the Minister’s address — again we got no answers. If the situation was hopeless before the debate, it is even more hopeless now, because we have heard the same rigmarole and the same tired excuses from the Minister, and that is disappointing.
Mrs Courtney rightly targeted the Member for West Belfast, Ms Ramsey, and the Member for Mid Ulster, John Kelly, for what they said. Ms Ramsey set up a straw man by claiming that the debate is an insult to those working in the Health Service. That is absolute rubbish. In fact, if the debate had not occurred, those who put in the hours in the Health Service would be insulted that we do not care enough to debate the crisis.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: No — I am winding up, and the Member is obviously getting wound up.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order, order.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Ms Ramsey said that she wished to commend the Minister. If she and her party wished to commend the Minister, why did they not table an amendment that commended her for her work on the waiting lists? They are silent on that; they do not wish to commend the Minister because they dodge the issue every time. Indeed, I see that they are getting rather erratic. That is probably because, as John Kelly said, they are Shinners.
I put it to the House earlier that if Bairbre de Brún were called Barbara Brown, if she had an English accent, or if she were a direct rule minister, we would be tripping over Shinners at Stormont Castle demanding her departure because she was a disaster. I noted that Sinn Féin dodged answering that tonight. When we search our hearts, we know that the Minister has given us no hope or comfort that we can take back to our constituents, be they in West Belfast or North Antrim. The Minister has sold them out, and that is the stark reality for us all.
John Kelly’s speech was a pièce de résistance. He said that is was the doctors’ fault and specifically that it was Dr Brian Patterson’s fault. Dr Patterson does more in one day than MrKelly will ever do in a year to help ailing people. He also went on to insinuate that it was the nurses’ fault. The only thing that he did not say was that it was the patients’ fault for being sick in the first place. It was ridiculous. All I can say to Sinn Féin is this: keep digging, because you are making a mighty big grave for yourselves.
There are fewer nurses working in Northern Ireland tonight than there were under Margaret Thatcher. That is the indictment on this Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety —

Prof Monica McWilliams: Margaret Thatcher started it.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Ms McWilliams says that Maggie Thatcher started it. It is a pity that the Minister will not improve the situation; all we hear is previous Governments being blamed when this Government do not make any improvements.
I feel drawn back to John Kelly’s comments because they were so imaginative. He slagged off the doctors. Dr Terry Magowan, a GP in Ballymena, was quoted in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 13 September 2002. I will read this slowly so that John Kelly can understand. Dr Magowan said that, since the end of fundholding, his practice had more than 200 minor surgery procedures disallowed each year:
"Although our funding through the General Medical Services budget was only for 60 procedures, we were able to achieve funding for more than 200 additional procedures through the fundholding budget."
That is another failure by the Health Service. Even when it ends one service, the problem of waiting lists is not addressed. The Minister has lost her grip.
The situation should be put in a European context. Northern Ireland does not stand alone in this crisis, although we have the longest waiting lists in Europe. It would be different if we had long waiting lists and everywhere else had even longer lists. There are 15 countries in the European Union; 11 of them maintain national waiting list totals. Taking population sizes into account, all of them have shorter waiting lists than Northern Ireland. The four countries that do not monitor the national trends do measure how long patients have to wait for treatment. Northern Ireland comes at the bottom of the pile. Portugal’s queue is 10,000 people longer than Northern Ireland’s, but its population is approximately six times higher.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I have reservations on some points, but I will support amendment No 2 and will not vote against amendment No 1.
Question,

Several Members: Aye.

Ms Jane Morrice: I shall repeat the Question, so that I am completely clear.
Question,

Several Members: Aye.

Ms Jane Morrice: The "Ayes" — [Interruption].

Several Members: No.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The first time the Question was put it was very clear that there were no "Noes". Surely we should have taken that and moved on to the Main Question?

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you for that point of order. In the Chair, I was unclear as to exactly what the position was when the "Ayes" and "Noes" were made. It was not clear to me, and therefore I repeated the Question. I shall put the Question a third time so that I can be totally clear as to what the position is on amendment No 1.
Question, 
Question, 
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the most recent statistics on hospital waiting lists and, recognising the problems of bureaucracy, lack of resources, wastage of present resources and total lack of decision-making within the healthcare system, calls for the implementation of an effective and co-ordinated strategic plan between the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Health Boards and Trusts to help reduce the number of patients and length of time spent on these waiting lists.
Adjourned at 5.14 pm.